Larson
Larson v. Turnbull
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Loren Larson filed a petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . The district court dismissed Larson’s petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2253 (a) and 1291, and we affirm.
The gravamen of Larson’s habeas petition is that pre-deliberation juror misconduct violated his constitutional rights. Larson became aware of that misconduct when he obtained affidavits from some of the jurors. He filed his federal habeas petition more than one year from his receipt of those affidavits, even taking into account the tolling that occurred when he was pursuing post-conviction relief in the Alaska courts. Thus, his petition was untimely. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(1)(D).
We reject Larson’s argument that the appropriate factual predicate is the Alaska Court of Appeal’s decision in Larson v. State, 79 P.3d 650 (Alaska Ct.App.2003). That decision does not qualify as a “fact” for purposes of deciding when the statute of limitation was triggered. See Johnson v. United, States, 544 U.S. 295 , 125 S.Ct. 1571 , 161 L.Ed.2d 542 (2005); Shannon v. Newland, 410 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir.2005).