Morr v. Stewart

Ninth Circuit

Morr v. Stewart

176 F. App'x 850

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 19, 2006

DocketNo. 04-16755

StatusPublished

This text of 176 F. App'x 850 (Morr v. Stewart) 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

Morr v. Stewart, 176 F. App'x 850 (9th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Petitioner, Robert Dale Morr, appeals the district court’s order denying as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Morr correctly concedes that he is not entitled to statutory tolling because his second state habeas petition was not filed timely. See Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 125 S.Ct. 1807, 1814, 161 L.Ed.2d 669 (2005). We need not determine whether Morr is entitled to equitable tolling because, even if we were to equitably toll the period that his Rule 32 motion was pending before the state court, his habeas petition remains untimely by at least sixteen days. Contrary to Morr’s assertion, the alleged extraordinary circumstance was removed once the state court ruled on the Rule 32 motion.

AFFIRMED.

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

MEMORANDUM

**

Petitioner, Robert Dale Morr, appeals the district court’s order denying as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Morr correctly concedes that he is not entitled to statutory tolling because his second state habeas petition was not filed timely. See Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 125 S.Ct. 1807, 1814, 161 L.Ed.2d 669 (2005). We need not determine whether Morr is entitled to equitable tolling because, even if we were to equitably toll the period that his Rule 32 motion was pending before the state court, his habeas petition remains untimely by at least sixteen days. Contrary to Morr’s assertion, the alleged extraordinary circumstance was removed once the state court ruled on the Rule 32 motion.

AFFIRMED.

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 F. App'x 850, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morr-v-stewart-ca9-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack