Hutchison v. Curry

Ninth Circuit

Hutchison v. Curry

328 F. App'x 391

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 24, 2009

DocketNo. 07-56755

StatusPublished

This text of 328 F. App'x 391 (Hutchison v. Curry) 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

Hutchison v. Curry, 328 F. App'x 391 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

*

The magistrate judge did not clearly err in his factual determination that Edwin Hutchison (“Hutchison”) was not entitled to equitable tolling of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act statute of limitations. We accordingly affirm his findings. See Park v. California, 202 F.3d 1146, 1149 (9th Cir.2000) (“Factual findings are reviewed for clear error.”).

We use our discretion under Ninth Circuit Rule 22-1 to consider Hutchison’s additional uncertified claim that he did not receive a full and fair evidentiary hearing. However, we find that his claim fails on the merits: the hearing was adequate and the magistrate judge’s decision to place limits on the length of cross-examination fell within his broad discretion to supervise hearings. See United States v. Morgan, 376 F.3d 1002, 1006-07 (9th Cir.2004) (noting the broad discretion of federal judges to supervise trials).

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

*

The magistrate judge did not clearly err in his factual determination that Edwin Hutchison (“Hutchison”) was not entitled to equitable tolling of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act statute of limitations. We accordingly affirm his findings. See Park v. California, 202 F.3d 1146, 1149 (9th Cir.2000) (“Factual findings are reviewed for clear error.”).

We use our discretion under Ninth Circuit Rule 22-1 to consider Hutchison’s additional uncertified claim that he did not receive a full and fair evidentiary hearing. However, we find that his claim fails on the merits: the hearing was adequate and the magistrate judge’s decision to place limits on the length of cross-examination fell within his broad discretion to supervise hearings. See United States v. Morgan, 376 F.3d 1002, 1006-07 (9th Cir.2004) (noting the broad discretion of federal judges to supervise trials).

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)

328 F. App'x 391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hutchison-v-curry-ca9-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack