Curiel v. Miller, No. 11-56949 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseIn 2006, Petitioner was convicted by a California superior court jury of first-degree murder and street terrorism. After unsuccessfully appealing to the California Court of Appeal and California Supreme Court, Petitioner filed several state habeas petitions in the trial court and the California Court of Appeal. All of the petitions were denied. In 2010, Petitioner filed a federal habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 in district court. The court dismissed the petition with prejudice on the ground that it was untimely. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Petitioner was not entitled statutory tolling of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s one-year statute of limitations during the pendency of his state court petitions; and (2) Petitioner was not entitled to equitable tolling due to the actions of his former trial counsel, as he had ample time to file a protective federal petition and his pro se status did not change the result.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. The panel affirmed the district court’s order dismissing as untimely California state prisoner Freddy Curiel’s habeas corpus petition brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The panel held that Curiel is not entitled to statutory tolling of AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations during the time in which his state post-conviction petition was pending. The panel explained that the California Supreme Court’s citations to In re Swain and People v. Duvall, in its two-line denial of Curiel’s petition, do not overcome the presumption that the California Supreme Court did not silently disregard the lower court’s determination that the petition was untimely. The panel rejected Curiel’s contention that he is entitled to equitable tolling due to the actions of his former trial counsel. The panel explained that even if it is true that Curiel could not file his habeas petition until his trial counsel provided him with the trial files, Curiel had ample time to file a protective federal petition. The panel wrote that Curiel’s pro se status does not change the result. CURIEL V. MILLER 3
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.