U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2002

Montgomery v. Stewart

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided September 26, 2002

46 F. App'x 897

Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM***

Montgomery’s equitable tolling claim fails under Miranda v. Castro,1 (attorney’s *898affirmative misstatement of the limitations period not grounds for equitable tolling); Frye v. Hickman,2 (“miscalculation of the limitations period by [petitioner’s] counsel and his negligence in general do not constitute extraordinary circumstances”); and Majoy v. Roe,3 (“[petitioner’s] attempt to place blame on his previous attorney and to assign his reliance on that attorney [sic] having made timely filing ‘impossible’ falls short of the circumstances [required to obtain equitable tolling]”).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

. 292 F.3d 1063, 1066-68 (9th Cir. 2002).

. 273 F.3d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir. 2001).

. 296 F.3d 770, 776 n. 3 (9th Cir. 2002).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.