From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wisenbaker v. Farwell

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jun 24, 2005
137 F. App'x 80 (9th Cir. 2005)

Opinion

Submitted: June 14, 2005.

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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)

Larry M. Wisenbaker, Lovelock, NV, pro se.

Richard A. Molezzo, Office of the Nevada Attorney General, Reno, NV, for Respondent-Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Edward C. Reed, Jr., District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-03-00316-ECR.

Before: KLEINFELD, TASHIMA, and THOMAS, 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 provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Larry M. Wisenbaker, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we vacate and remand.

Wisenbaker contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act's ("AEDPA") one-year limitations period because his attorney failed to deliver his file to him until after his deadline expired. It is undisputed that Wisenbaker did not receive his records until approximately five months after his AEDPA deadline. Accordingly, the district court's judgment is vacated and this case is remanded to the district court to provide Wisenbaker an opportunity to more fully develop the record and to determine whether the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled. See United States v. Battles, 362 F.3d 1195, 1197-99 (9th Cir.2004). Though Wisenbaker filed a late § 2254 petition before receiving records from his attorney, this does not undermine his equitable tolling claim. See id. at 1198 n. 5.

To the extent that Wisenbaker raises issues not included in the Certificate of Appealability ("COA"), we construe it as a motion to broaden the COA and we deny the motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e).

VACATED and REMANDED.


Summaries of

Wisenbaker v. Farwell

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jun 24, 2005
137 F. App'x 80 (9th Cir. 2005)
Case details for

Wisenbaker v. Farwell

Case Details

Full title:Larry M. WISENBAKER, Petitioner--Appellant, v. Craig FARWELL…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jun 24, 2005

Citations

137 F. App'x 80 (9th Cir. 2005)