Bruce Allen, Petitioner-appellant, v. William Bunnell, Respondent-appellee, 983 F.2d 1075 (9th Cir. 1993)
Annotate this CaseBefore GOODWIN, O'SCANNLAIN and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM**
Bruce Allen appeals the district court's dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus, construed as an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, on the ground that a § 1983 action is barred by the statute of limitations.1 He primarily argues that the running of the statute should have been equitably tolled while he exhausted state remedies. See, e.g., Irwin v. Veterans Administration, 498 U.S. 89, 111 S. Ct. 453, 457-58 (1990); Ervin v. County of Los Angeles, 848 F.2d 1018, 1019 (9th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1014 (1989); Addison v. State, 146 Cal. Rptr. 224, 226 (Cal.1978).
Allen's habeas petition was properly rejected since he was not in custody at the time it was filed. However, Allen objected to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation dismissing the reconstrued pleading as time barred because it penalized him for having exhausted state remedies. The district court did not address this point, therefore we remand so that it may consider whether principles of equitable tolling are applicable to this case.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3
There is no cross-appeal from the decision to treat Allen's petition as a claim for relief under § 1983
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.
