From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Borstad v. Galaza

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 23, 2001
27 F. App'x 758 (9th Cir. 2001)

Opinion


27 Fed.Appx. 758 (9th Cir. 2001) Demetrius BORSTAD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. George GALAZA, Respondent-Appellee. No. 00-17459. D.C. No. CV-97-20869-JW. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Oct. 23, 2001

Submitted Oct. 15, 2001.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

State prisoner filed petition for writ of habeas corpus. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, James Ware, J., dismissed petition, and petitioner appealed. The Court of Appeals held that petition was timely filed.

Vacated and remanded.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California James Ware, District Judge, Presiding.

Before REINHARDT, GRABER and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Demetrius Borstad, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo the district court's dismissal of Borstad's habeas petition, see Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1105 (9th Cir.1999), and we vacate and remand for further proceedings.

Borstad contends that his § 2254 petition was timely filed because the district court incorrectly calculated the time during which the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act's (AEDPA) one-year limitation period was tolled. This contention has merit.

The one-year limitations period began to run in Borstad's case on April 24, 1996. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1); Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d at 1105. Given the benefit of tolling for the entire time during which Borstad was properly pursuing habeas relief in the California courts, the statute of limitations expired on September 30, 1997. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2); Nino v. Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1104, 120 S.Ct. 1846, 146 L.Ed.2d 787 (2000); Bunney v. Mitchell, 262 F.3d 973, 974 (9th Cir.2001) (holding that limitations period is tolled until California Supreme Court denial of state habeas petition becomes final, 30 days after filing). Because Borstad submitted his § 2254 petition to prison authorities for filing on September 24, 1997, his petition

Bunney v. Mitchell was not decided until after the district court had rendered its decision in this case.

See Anthony v. Cambra, 236 F.3d 568, 575 (9th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 533 U.S. 941, 121 S.Ct. 2576, 150 L.Ed.2d 739 (2001) (holding that prison "mailbox rule" applies to state as well as federal habeas petitions).

Page 759.

was timely filed, and we remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

VACATED and REMANDED.


Summaries of

Borstad v. Galaza

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 23, 2001
27 F. App'x 758 (9th Cir. 2001)
Case details for

Borstad v. Galaza

Case Details

Full title:Demetrius BORSTAD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. George GALAZA…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Oct 23, 2001

Citations

27 F. App'x 758 (9th Cir. 2001)