Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Frederick anderson v. James Walker

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


February 10, 2011

FREDERICK ANDERSON, PETITIONER,
v.
JAMES WALKER, RESPONDENT.

ORDER

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel and in forma pauperis, seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Dckt. No. 10. Prior to filing the instant petition, petitioner filed a motion for equitable tolling. Dckt. No. 5. The court's July 15, 2010 order directing respondent to respond to the petition noted that it would address petitioner's motion for equitable tolling after receiving respondent's answer/motion and petitioner's reply/opposition, if any. Dckt. No. 19. On September 13, 2010, respondent filed an answer to the petition, and on November 17, 2010, petitioner filed a reply. Dckt. Nos. 28, 34. The court now addresses the motion for tolling.

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act imposes a one-year limitations period for seeking federal habeas relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). The limitations period may be equitably tolled where a habeas petitioner establishes two elements: (1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way. Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005). Here, respondent does not contest the timeliness of the petition. Accordingly, petitioner's motion for equitable tolling, Dckt. No. 5, is denied as unnecessary.

So ordered.

20110210

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.