Willis v. Newland
Willis v. Newland
Opinion of the Court
Olan Dwayne Willis appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as time barred. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2258, and we deny Willis’s petition.
Because the facts are known to the parties, we do not recite them here. Willis is entitled to neither statutory nor equitable tolling. By the time Willis filed his petition in state court, the statute of limitations had already expired.
Willis’s second petition does not “relate back” to his first petition either. Willis’s initial petition was not a mixed petition: it raised only one unexhausted claim.
PETITION DENIED.
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.
. Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 171-76, 121 S.Ct. 2120, 150 L.Ed.2d 251 (2001) (holding that habeas petition is not tolled during pendency of federal petition)
. Ford v. Hubbard, 330 F.3d 1086, 1092-93 (9th Cir. 2003) (acknowledging equitable tolling when situation made it impossible for petitioner to timely file).
. Green v. White, 223 F.3d 1001, 1003 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that second habeas petition does not relate back to first habeas petition that the district court dismissed for failure to exhaust).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.