Clarke Lowe v. James Tilton
This text of 390 F. App'x 709 (Clarke Lowe v. James Tilton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
California state prisoner Clarke Sheldon Lowe appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C § 2253 1 , and we affirm.
*710 Lowe contends that he is entitled to statutory tolling under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). We agree with the district court’s determination that Lowe failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to statutory tolling for the period between the Superior Court’s decision denying his state ha-beas petition and the filing of his petition in the California Court of Appeal. See Chaffer v. Prosper, 592 F.3d 1046, 1048 (9th Cir.2010) (per curiam) (holding that petitioner is not entitled to statutory tolling “[b]ecause Chaffer’s filing delays were substantially longer than the 30 to 60 days that most States allow for filing petitions”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
390 F. App'x 709, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clarke-lowe-v-james-tilton-ca9-2010.