Bond v. Walsh

Second Circuit

Bond v. Walsh

53 F. App'x 162

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedDecember 17, 2002

DocketDocket No. 02-2157

StatusPublished

This text of 53 F. App'x 162 (Bond v. Walsh) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bond v. Walsh, 53 F. App'x 162 (2d Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be, and it hereby is, VACATED AND REMANDED.

Richard Bond appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Raggi, J.), denying his petition for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition was denied on the ground that it was not filed within the one-year limitations period specified in § 2244(b)(1)(A). On appeal, Bond contends that the limitations period should have been equitably tolled for a period of 281 days because his attorney allegedly told him that the filing of a Freedom of Information Law request would toll the one-year period, and because his attorney allegedly had control of his case files.

On the issues reached by the district court, we find no error. However, the district court’s opinion did not consider the equitable tolling issue, likely because it was raised in a footnote. As Bond was acting pro se, we read his pleadings liberally, and conclude that the issue, though easily missed, was sufficiently raised. In [163]*163order to allow the district court to determine the issue in the first instance, we remand. We intimate no view on the merits, if any.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby VACATED AND REMANDED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be, and it hereby is, VACATED AND REMANDED.

Richard Bond appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Raggi, J.), denying his petition for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition was denied on the ground that it was not filed within the one-year limitations period specified in § 2244(b)(1)(A). On appeal, Bond contends that the limitations period should have been equitably tolled for a period of 281 days because his attorney allegedly told him that the filing of a Freedom of Information Law request would toll the one-year period, and because his attorney allegedly had control of his case files.

On the issues reached by the district court, we find no error. However, the district court’s opinion did not consider the equitable tolling issue, likely because it was raised in a footnote. As Bond was acting pro se, we read his pleadings liberally, and conclude that the issue, though easily missed, was sufficiently raised. In [163]*163order to allow the district court to determine the issue in the first instance, we remand. We intimate no view on the merits, if any.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby VACATED AND REMANDED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 F. App'x 162, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bond-v-walsh-ca2-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack