176 F. App'x 830

James Odra SMITH, Petitioner—Appellant, v. D. ADAMS, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 05-16283.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 6, 2006.

Decided April 18, 2006.

James Odra Smith, Corcoran, CA, pro se.

Timothy J. Foley, Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Sacramento, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Justain P. Riley, DAG, Office of the California Attorney General Department of Justice, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

*831Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, TROTT and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

California state prisoner James Odra Smith appeals the district court’s dismissal as untimely of his § 2254 petition on remand from this court.

Smith claims that California’s time limits are not comparable to those held to be “filing conditions” in Pace v. DiGuglielmo1 because California only requires that a petition be filed within a “reasonable period.” This argument is foreclosed by Circuit precedent.2

The language that the Tulare County Superior Court used to deny the petition is materially identical to the language that the Superior Court used in Bonner v. Carey.3 We held in Bonner that this amounts to a denial for untimeliness. Thus, under Pace v. DiGuglielmo,4 it was not “properly filed” for purposes of statutory tolling.5

Without the benefit of this statutory tolling, Smith’s petition is time-barred even if we were to grant him the equitable tolling to which he claims entitlement.

AFFIRMED.

Smith v. Adams
176 F. App'x 830

Case Details

Name
Smith v. Adams
Decision Date
Apr 18, 2006
Citations

176 F. App'x 830

Jurisdiction
United States

References

Referencing

Nothing yet... Still searching!

Referenced By

Nothing yet... Still searching!