Spikes v. Hickman

8 F. App'x 607
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMarch 26, 2001
DocketNo. 00-16352; D.C. No. CV-99-02548-DFL
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 8 F. App'x 607 (Spikes v. Hickman) 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
Spikes v. Hickman, 8 F. App'x 607 (9th Cir. 2001).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM2

California state prisoner Leamon Spikes appeals pro se the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal, on statute of limitations grounds, of a petition for writ of habeas corpus, Bunney v. Mitchell, 241 F.3d 1151, 1154 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.

Because Spikes’ conviction became final after the enactment of Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Spikes’ petition is subject to a one-year statute of limitations running from the date of which his conviction became final. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). This statute of limitations is tolled for all of the period during which a state prisoner is attempting, through proper use of state court procedures, to exhaust state court remedies. Nino v. Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir.1999).

Because Spike did not have any court petitions pending for over a year after his conviction became final, the statute of limitations was not tolled, he cannot benefit from tolling, and his habeas petition must be deemed untimely. Id.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
8 F. App'x 607, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spikes-v-hickman-ca9-2001.