Jiminez v. Rice, No. 99-15574

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
Citation2000 WL 1180557,222 F.3d 1210
Decision Date10 April 2000
Parties(9th Cir. 2000) SEBASTIAN H. JIMINEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. BERTRAM RICE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. Office of the Circuit Executive
Docket NumberNo. 99-15574

Page 1210

222 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir. 2000)
SEBASTIAN H. JIMINEZ, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
BERTRAM RICE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 99-15574
Office of the Circuit Executive
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Argued and Submitted April 10, 2000--San Francisco, California
Filed August 22, 2000

NOTE: THE COURT HAS WITHDRAWN THIS OPINION SEE 246 F.3d 1277.

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 practice notes
  • Reynolds v. Cambra, No. CV977048CBMAJW.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Central District of California
    • March 9, 2001
    ...by the Court. In addition, federal habeas petitions do not toll the limitation period pursuant to section 2244(d)(2). Jiminez v. Rice, 222 F.3d 1210, 1213-1214 (9th Cir.2000). Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to statutory tolling of the limitation Equitable tolling Petitioner alleges t......
  • Duncan v Walker, 00-121
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 18, 2001
    ...to resolve a conflict between the Second Circuit's decision and the decisions of three other Courts of Appeals. See Jiminez v. Rice, 222 F.3d 1210 (CA9 2000); Grooms v. Johnson, 208 F.3d 488 (CA5 1999) (per curiam); Jones v. Morton, 195 F.3d 153 (CA3 1999). One other Court of Appeals has si......
  • Griffey v. Lindsey, No. 99-17643.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • September 26, 2003
    ...was pending in federal court. See Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 174, 121 S.Ct. 2120, 150 L.Ed.2d 251 (2001); see also Jiminez v. Rice, 222 F.3d 1210, 1213 (9th Cir.2000), withdrawn by 246 F.3d 1277 (2001). A number of habeas petitions that were dismissed "without prejudice" for failure to......
  • Mayne v. Hall, No. CIV. A. 00-11209-RGS.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Massachusetts
    • November 15, 2000
    ...has considered section 2244(d)(2)'s effect on [a petition for writ of certiorari] concluded that there is no tolling." Jiminez v. Rice, 222 F.3d 1210, 2000 WL 1180557 at * 3 (9th Cir. Aug.22, 2000). The reasoning for this conclusion is First, section 2244(d)(1)(A), the provision applicable ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
16 cases
  • Reynolds v. Cambra, No. CV977048CBMAJW.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Central District of California
    • March 9, 2001
    ...by the Court. In addition, federal habeas petitions do not toll the limitation period pursuant to section 2244(d)(2). Jiminez v. Rice, 222 F.3d 1210, 1213-1214 (9th Cir.2000). Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to statutory tolling of the limitation Equitable tolling Petitioner alleges t......
  • Duncan v Walker, 00-121
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 18, 2001
    ...to resolve a conflict between the Second Circuit's decision and the decisions of three other Courts of Appeals. See Jiminez v. Rice, 222 F.3d 1210 (CA9 2000); Grooms v. Johnson, 208 F.3d 488 (CA5 1999) (per curiam); Jones v. Morton, 195 F.3d 153 (CA3 1999). One other Court of Appeals has si......
  • Griffey v. Lindsey, No. 99-17643.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • September 26, 2003
    ...was pending in federal court. See Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 174, 121 S.Ct. 2120, 150 L.Ed.2d 251 (2001); see also Jiminez v. Rice, 222 F.3d 1210, 1213 (9th Cir.2000), withdrawn by 246 F.3d 1277 (2001). A number of habeas petitions that were dismissed "without prejudice" for failure to......
  • Mayne v. Hall, No. CIV. A. 00-11209-RGS.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Massachusetts
    • November 15, 2000
    ...has considered section 2244(d)(2)'s effect on [a petition for writ of certiorari] concluded that there is no tolling." Jiminez v. Rice, 222 F.3d 1210, 2000 WL 1180557 at * 3 (9th Cir. Aug.22, 2000). The reasoning for this conclusion is First, section 2244(d)(1)(A), the provision applicable ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT