Graves v. Haws
This text of 324 F. App'x 672 (Graves v. Haws) 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 Fred Graves appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Graves contends that he is entitled to statutory tolling during the times when his [673]*673applications for state collateral review were pending, and equitable tolling during the time he was in administrative segregation. Even if Graves were entitled to tolling for these times, his federal habeas petition was still filed after the expiration of the one-year limitations period set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). See Shelby v. Bartlett, 391 F.3d 1061, 1065-66 (9th Cir. 2004).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
324 F. App'x 672, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/graves-v-haws-ca9-2009.