From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thomas v. Roe

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Dec 27, 2001
23 F. App'x 847 (9th Cir. 2001)

Opinion


23 Fed.Appx. 847 (9th Cir. 2001) Oliver THOMAS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ernest C. ROE, Warden; et al., Respondents-Appellees. No. 00-55783. D.C. No. CV-98-04861-GHK-AN. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. December 27, 2001

Submitted December 17, 2001 .

This 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California George H. King, District Judge, Presiding.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, TROTT And PAEZ, 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

California state prisoner Oliver Thomas, Jr. appeals the district court's denial of his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for relief from the judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, review for abuse of discretion, see Greenawalt v. Stewart, 105 F.3d 1268, 1273 (9th Cir.1997), and reverse and remand.

As the government concedes, under Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4, 121 S.Ct. 361, 148 L.Ed.2d 213 (2000) and Dictado v. Ducharme, 244 F.3d 724 (9th Cir.2001), Thomas's state petition filed on January 16, 1998, was properly filed for purposes of tolling under section 2244(d)(2). Accordingly, Thomas's section 2254 petition is timely.

REVERSED and REMANDED.


Summaries of

Thomas v. Roe

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Dec 27, 2001
23 F. App'x 847 (9th Cir. 2001)
Case details for

Thomas v. Roe

Case Details

Full title:Oliver THOMAS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ernest C. ROE, Warden; et…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Dec 27, 2001

Citations

23 F. App'x 847 (9th Cir. 2001)