From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mendez v. Hatton

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 31, 2017
Case No. CV 16-3388-SP (C.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2017)

Summary

explaining that Martinez has no bearing on whether the petitioner was entitled to equitable tolling

Summary of this case from Long v. Paramo

Opinion

Case No. CV 16-3388-SP

03-31-2017

JOSE MENDEZ, Petitioner, v. S. HATTON, Warden, Respondent.


JUDGMENT

Pursuant to the Memorandum Opinion and Order Granting Motion to Dismiss filed contemporaneously with the filing of this Judgment,

IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED that the Petition is denied and this action is dismissed with prejudice. Dated: March 31, 2017

/s/_________

SHERI PYM

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Mendez v. Hatton

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 31, 2017
Case No. CV 16-3388-SP (C.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2017)

explaining that Martinez has no bearing on whether the petitioner was entitled to equitable tolling

Summary of this case from Long v. Paramo
Case details for

Mendez v. Hatton

Case Details

Full title:JOSE MENDEZ, Petitioner, v. S. HATTON, Warden, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Mar 31, 2017

Citations

Case No. CV 16-3388-SP (C.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2017)

Citing Cases

Long v. Paramo

Martinez has no bearing on the statute of limitations issue. See, e.g., Mendez v. Hatton, 2017 WL 1237980, at…