Harper v. Clark

Ninth Circuit

Harper v. Clark

372 F. App'x 824

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 1, 2010

Docket07-56428

StatusUnpublished

This text of 372 F. App'x 824 (Harper v. Clark) 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

Harper v. Clark, 372 F. App'x 824 (9th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Steven Boyd Harper, a California state prisoner, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his federal habeas petition for failure to comply with the one-year statute *825 of limitations of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § § 1291 and 2253, and we affirm.

A habeas petition is timely if filed within AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitation period. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). A petition can also be timely, even if filed after the one-year time period has expired, when tolling applies. See Tillema v. Long, 253 F.3d 494, 498 (9th Cir.2001). Harper contends he is entitled to such tolling because he did not receive notice of the California Supreme Court’s decision denying his state petition.

The State has submitted evidence, however, which indicates Harper did receive notice of the California Supreme Court’s decision. Harper does not dispute the accuracy of this evidence. In fact, it is corroborated by other evidence he submitted to the district court. Because the State’s evidence demonstrates that the issues before this court are entirely without merit and a remand to the district court would waste judicial resources, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

We deny Harper’s motion to strike the evidence from the record.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Steven Boyd Harper, a California state prisoner, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his federal habeas petition for failure to comply with the one-year statute *825 of limitations of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § § 1291 and 2253, and we affirm.

A habeas petition is timely if filed within AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitation period. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). A petition can also be timely, even if filed after the one-year time period has expired, when tolling applies. See Tillema v. Long, 253 F.3d 494, 498 (9th Cir.2001). Harper contends he is entitled to such tolling because he did not receive notice of the California Supreme Court’s decision denying his state petition.

The State has submitted evidence, however, which indicates Harper did receive notice of the California Supreme Court’s decision. Harper does not dispute the accuracy of this evidence. In fact, it is corroborated by other evidence he submitted to the district court. Because the State’s evidence demonstrates that the issues before this court are entirely without merit and a remand to the district court would waste judicial resources, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

We deny Harper’s motion to strike the evidence from the record.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

372 F. App'x 824, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harper-v-clark-ca9-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack