Duchine v. Newland

Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Duchine v. Newland

Citation: 31 F. App'x 381Docket: No. 00-15699; D.C. No. CV-99-04533-MMC

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; February 19, 2002; Federal Appellate Court

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

John Allen Duchine, a California state prisoner, appeals the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition on the grounds of untimeliness. The appellate court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and conducts a de novo review of the dismissal based on statute of limitations. The court vacates the dismissal and remands for further proceedings.

Duchine argues that the one-year statute of limitations under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) should be tolled due to the prison law library's failure to provide a copy of the AEDPA or competent legal assistance regarding its limitations until August or October 1998. The appellate court finds that the district court erred by not considering this as a sufficient basis for equitable tolling.

Citing precedent, the court notes that an inadequate prison law library may constitute an “impediment” under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(B) and can justify equitable tolling of the AEDPA statute of limitations. Given that the district court did not develop the factual record related to the library issue, and that determinations regarding the existence of an “impediment” and grounds for equitable tolling are fact-dependent, the court remands the case. The appellate court emphasizes that the district court is better positioned to gather facts and assess their legal implications.

The case is vacated and remanded for further proceedings, and Duchine's motions for judicial notice are denied as moot. This decision is not intended for publication and cannot be cited in future cases except as permitted by the 9th Circuit Rule 36-3.