Souliotes v. Evans

• Decision Date: 17 August 2011
• Docket Number: No. 08–15943.,08–15943.
• Citation: Souliotes v. Evans, 654 F.3d 902, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12474 (9th Cir. 2011)
• Parties: George SOULIOTES, Petitioner–Appellant,v.Mike EVANS, Warden; Anthony Hedgpeth, Warden, Respondents–Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

654 F.3d 902

2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12,474

George SOULIOTES, Petitioner–Appellant,

v.Mike EVANS, Warden; Anthony Hedgpeth, Warden, Respondents–Appellees.

No. 08–15943.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Feb. 12, 2010.Filed Aug. 17, 2011.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERERandall S. Luskey, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, San Francisco, CA, for the petitioner-appellant.Kathleen A. McKenna, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General of California, Fresno, CA, for the respondents-appellees.Sheryl Gordon McCloud, Law Offices of Sheryl Gordon McCloud, Seattle, WA; Bob Barr, Atlanta, GA; Matthew D. Brown, Cooley Godward Kronish LLP, San Francisco, CA, for the amici.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Oliver W. Wanger, District Judge, Presiding.D.C.No. 1:06–cv–00667–OWW–WMW.Before: M. MARGARET McKEOWN and MARSHA S. BERZON,^* Circuit Judges, and THOMAS S. ZILLY,^**Senior District Judge.

ORDER

In light of the intervening en banc decision in Lee v. Lampert,653 F.3d 929(9th Cir.2011)(en banc), we vacate our opinion in Souliotes v. Evans,622 F.3d 1173(9th Cir.2010), reverse the district court's dismissal of Souliotes's habeas petition as untimely, and remand for proceedings consistent with Lee.

We also vacate our order of limited remand issued on May 25, 2011, with the understanding that the district court will conduct whatever proceedings are necessary, in an expedited manner, to determine whether any of Souliotes's habeas claims may be addressed on the merits.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

...