Walker

Walker v. Roe

Good Law
189 F. App'x 610
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 10, 2006No. 02-16386California481 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Earl Lee Walker (“Walker”) appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as barred by the statute of limitations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of Walker’s habeas petition, see Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1105 (9th Cir.1999), and we affirm.

Walker challenges his 1998 conviction for first-degree burglary and possession of cocaine, which conviction became final on July 14, 1998. Absent tolling, under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(1)(A) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), West had until July 13, 1999 to file his § 2254 petition. See Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Beeler), 128 F.3d 1283, 1288-89 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled in part on other grounds, Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Kelly), 163 F.3d 530, 540 (9th Cir.1998) (en banc). Even granting Walker statutory tolling through the California Court of Appeal’s denial of his third habeas petition on November 25, 1998, the statute of limitations would have expired November 25, 1999. Alternatively, granting Walker 77 days of tolling for the time his…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.