Paul Teahan v. v. Almager
Paul Michael TEAHAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. V.M. ALMAGER; Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Respondents-Appellees
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Trial judge
- William Q. Hayes (district judge)
- Outcome
- affirmed — AFFIRMED.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William C. Canby, Jr. (author), Thomas, Fletcher
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 10 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PAUL MICHAEL TEAHAN, No. 08-55608 Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:07-cv-00586-WQH v. MEMORANDUM * V. M. ALMAGER; EDMUND G. BROWN, Jr., Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 25, 2010 ** Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
California prisoner Paul Michael Teahan appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Teahan contends that new reliable evidence of actual innocence entitles him to equitable tolling and excuses the untimely filing of his petition. Teahan bases his claim of actual innocence primarily upon the unsworn alibi statements four witnesses provided to a defense investigator during pre-trial investigation.
Assuming that the actual innocence gateway of Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 327 (1995), provides a basis for equitable tolling, Teahan has failed to show that, based on this evidence, it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See Smith v. Baldwin, 510 F.3d 1127, 1142 (9th Cir. 2007). Therefore, the district court did not err in dismissing his petition as untimely.
AFFIRMED.
2 08-55608