Harper v. Clark

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 07-56428 · 2010-04-01 · Unpublished

Steven Boyd HARPER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ken CLARK, Respondent-Appellee

Area: other
Panel: Otto R. Skopil, Jr. (author), Nelson, Edward Leavy

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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 01 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STEVEN BOYD HARPER, No. 07-56428 Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. CV-06-01683-JM(PCL)

v. MEMORANDUM * KEN CLARK, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Jeffrey T. Miller, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 16, 2009 ** Before: SKOPIL, LEAVY and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

Steven Boyd Harper, a California state prisoner, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his federal habeas petition for failure to comply with the one-year statute of limitations of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. A habeas petition is timely if filed within AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitation period. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). A petition can also be timely, even if filed after the one-year time period has expired, when tolling applies. See Tillema v. Long, 253 F.3d 494, 498 (9th Cir. 2001). Harper contends he is entitled to such tolling because he did not receive notice of the California Supreme Court’s decision denying his state petition.

The State has submitted evidence, however, which indicates Harper did receive notice of the California Supreme Court’s decision. Harper does not dispute the accuracy of this evidence. In fact, it is corroborated by other evidence he submitted to the district court. Because the State’s evidence demonstrates that the issues before this court are entirely without merit and a remand to the district court would waste judicial resources, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

We deny Harper’s motion to strike the evidence from the record.

AFFIRMED.

-2-