Jiminez v. Rice
Decision Date | 10 April 2000 |
Docket Number | No. 99-15574,99-15574 |
Parties | (9th Cir. 2000) SEBASTIAN H. JIMINEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. BERTRAM RICE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. Office of the Circuit Executive |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
To continue reading
Request your trial18 cases
-
Reynolds v. Cambra
...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 that......
-
Duncan v Walker
...(2000), 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 Appeal......
-
Griffey v. Lindsey
...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U.S. 167, 174, 121 S.Ct. 2120, 150 L.Ed.2d 251 (2001); see also Jiminez v. Rice, 222 F.3d 1210, 1213 (9th Cir.2000), withdrawn by 246 F.3d 1277 (2001).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 exh......
-
Mayne v. Hall
...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 to determining ......
Request a trial to view additional results