Full text
Samuel Quinton BONNER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Tom CAREY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee

Loading…
Opinion
439 F.3d 993 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 7, 2006
Full text
Samuel Quinton BONNER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Tom CAREY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
S.D. California · Feb 25, 2025
S.D. California · Jan 8, 2025
C.D. California · Dec 30, 2024
W.D. Washington · Dec 17, 2024
S.D. California · Oct 23, 2024
C.D. California · Sep 27, 2024
S.D. California · Apr 18, 2024
N.D. California · Mar 13, 2024
D. Arizona · Jan 26, 2024
Parentheticals
holding that a state application for post-conviction 11 relief which is ultimately dismissed as untimely was neither “properly filed” nor “pending” 12 while it was under consideration by the state court, and therefore does not statutorily toll 13 the statute of limitations
when it “is untimely under state law, ‘that [is] the end of the matter’ for purposes of § 2244(d)(2)”
“Because the California courts dismissed Bonner's petition as untimely, his 23 petition was not “properly filed” under AEDPA. Accordingly, he is not entitled to 24 tolling under § 2244(d)(2).”
“Neither does the fact that the superior court also denied Bonner’s petition on the 9 merits save his petition. Because the California courts dismissed Bonner’s petition as untimely, his 10 petition was not ‘properly filed’ under AEDPA.”