ROBERT RICHARDSON V. ANTHONY NEWLAND, No. 12-17173 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 10 2016 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERT HOWARD RICHARDSON, Petitioner - Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 12-17173 D.C. No. 2:97-cv-02318-LKKDAD v. ANTHONY C. NEWLAND; GLENN A. MUELLER, MEMORANDUM* Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Lawrence K. Karlton, Senior District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 16, 2016** San Francisco, California Before: KLEINFELD, RAWLINSON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Robert Richardson, who was convicted in California state court of first degree murder involving the personal use of a firearm, appeals the district court’s order * 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). dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We affirm. 1. We have already determined that Richardson is not entitled to statutory tolling under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) because his state habeas petition was deemed untimely in state court and thus was not “‘properly filed’ for purposes of tolling AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations.” Richardson v. Newland, 171 Fed. App’x 156, 157 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2)). We decline Richardson’s invitation to revisit that ruling. 2. Richardson is not entitled to equitable tolling because no “‘extraordinary circumstance stood in his way’ and prevented timely filing” of his federal petition. Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 649 (2010) (quoting Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005)). California’s indeterminate state habeas limitations regime may have prevented Richardson from being certain whether a state court would find his petition timely, but it did nothing to discourage him from filing that petition earlier. Had he done so, he would have been able to file his federal petition within the one-year limitations period and “he would not now be facing any time problem, state or federal.” Pace, 544 U.S. at 419. AFFIRMED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
