STEVEN RITCHIE V. MIKE FERRITER, No. 10-35666 (9th Cir. 2012)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED MAY 10 2012 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT STEVEN RAY RITCHIE, Petitioner - Appellant, No. 10-35666 D.C. No. 9:09-CV-00177-DWMJCL v. MIKE FERRITER; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MONTANA, Esquire, MEMORANDUM * Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted April 10, 2012 Seattle, Washington Before: D.W. NELSON, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges Petitioner Steven Ritchie appeals the dismissal of his federal habeas petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยงยง 1291 and 2253. We affirm in part, and vacate and remand in part. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Assuming without deciding that Ritchie s application for sentence review could toll the statute of limitations, that his application was properly filed, and thus that the statute of limitations was tolled during the pendency of his sentence review application, nevertheless Ritchie s federal habeas petition still would be timebarred without the benefit of equitable tolling. We therefore need not consider separately whether statutory tolling is available pursuant to Wall v. Kohli, 131 S.Ct. 1278 (2011). The district court concluded that equitable tolling did not apply before our decision in Bills v. Clark, 628 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2010). We remand for consideration of equitable tolling pursuant to the heavily fact-dependent Bills standard, id. at 1100 01, expressing no view as to whether such tolling is warranted in this case. The district court shall hold an evidentiary hearing, if necessary, to determine whether equitable tolling applies. Each party shall bear their own costs. AFFIRMED in part; VACATED and REMANDED in part. 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.