Lee v. Lampert
This text of 92 F. App'x 532 (Lee v. Lampert) 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
Oregon state prisoner Richard Lee appeals the district court’s dismissal, as time-barred, of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition, challenging his conviction for sodomy and sex abuse.
Lee contends, and the appellee agrees, that the district court erred in sua sponte concluding that Lee’s habeas petition on [533]*533its face was untimely filed under the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty (“AEDPA”). The AEDPA, unless tolled, imposes a one-year statute of limitations on habeas petitions filed in federal court by state prisoners. When Lee filed his federal habeas petition on March 11, 2002 which was within one year of August 7, 2001, the alleged date that state court post-conviction proceedings became final, the district court erred in concluding that Lee’s petition was time-barred for that reason, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), and the district court should not have dismissed the petition as untimely on its face. Because we conclude that Lee is entitled to remand for this reason, we do not consider the alternative arguments raised in his brief.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit 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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
92 F. App'x 532, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-v-lampert-ca9-2004.