Curtis Askins v. Hartley

Ninth Circuit

Curtis Askins v. Hartley

448 F. App'x 768

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 31, 2011

Docket08-56715

StatusUnpublished

This text of 448 F. App'x 768 (Curtis Askins v. Hartley) 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.

Bluebook

Curtis Askins v. Hartley, 448 F. App'x 768 (9th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Curtis D. Askins appeals from the district court’s denial of his § 2254 habeas petition. Because Askins filed the instant habeas petition more than four years after his conviction became final, it is time-barred under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AED-PA”). 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A).

Askins is not entitled to statutory tolling under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) because he did not file for state collateral relief until long after his AEDPA limitations period expired. Jiminez v. Rice, 276 F.3d 478, 482 (9th Cir.2001).

Nor is Askins entitled to equitable tolling. Askins has neither shown an “extraordinary circumstance” that stood in the way of timely filing, Holland v. Florida, — U.S. -, -, 130 S.Ct. 2549, 2562, 177 L.Ed.2d 130 (2010); see also Ford v. Pliler, 590 F.3d 782, 788 (9th Cir.2009), nor that “he has been pursuing his rights diligently,” Holland, 130 S.Ct. at 2562; see also Guillory v. Roe, 329 F.3d 1015, 1018 (9th Cir.2003).

Finally, Askins’ argument that the instant habeas petition relates back to an earlier-filed federal habeas petition is without merit. Rasberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1155 (9th Cir.2006). We therefore vacate the district court’s denial of Askins’ petition on the merits and remand with an instruction that the district court enter an order dismissing the petition as time-barred.

VACATED and REMANDED with INSTRUCTION.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Curtis D. Askins appeals from the district court’s denial of his § 2254 habeas petition. Because Askins filed the instant habeas petition more than four years after his conviction became final, it is time-barred under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AED-PA”). 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A).

Askins is not entitled to statutory tolling under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) because he did not file for state collateral relief until long after his AEDPA limitations period expired. Jiminez v. Rice, 276 F.3d 478, 482 (9th Cir.2001).

Nor is Askins entitled to equitable tolling. Askins has neither shown an “extraordinary circumstance” that stood in the way of timely filing, Holland v. Florida, — U.S. -, -, 130 S.Ct. 2549, 2562, 177 L.Ed.2d 130 (2010); see also Ford v. Pliler, 590 F.3d 782, 788 (9th Cir.2009), nor that “he has been pursuing his rights diligently,” Holland, 130 S.Ct. at 2562; see also Guillory v. Roe, 329 F.3d 1015, 1018 (9th Cir.2003).

Finally, Askins’ argument that the instant habeas petition relates back to an earlier-filed federal habeas petition is without merit. Rasberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1155 (9th Cir.2006). We therefore vacate the district court’s denial of Askins’ petition on the merits and remand with an instruction that the district court enter an order dismissing the petition as time-barred.

VACATED and REMANDED with INSTRUCTION.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

448 F. App'x 768, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curtis-askins-v-hartley-ca9-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack