green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
11.4 score
“he miscalculation of the limitations period by ... counsel and his negligence in general do not constitute extraordinary circumstances sufficient to warrant equitable tolling.”
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 22 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Richard Herman Ford v. S. Hubbard, Warden Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, Richard Herman Ford v. S. Hubbard, Warden Attorney General of the State of California, Richard Herman Ford v. United States District Court for the Central District of California, S. Hubbard, Warden, Real Party in Interest. Richard Herman Ford v. S. Hubbard, Warden, Richard Herman Ford v. United States District Court for the Central District of California, S. Hubbard, Warden, Real Party in Interest
he miscalculation of the limitations period by ... counsel and his negligence in general do not constitute extraordinary circumstances sufficient to warrant equitable tolling.
discussed
Cited "see"
Culver v. Director of Corrections
See Frye v. Hickman, 273 F.3d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir.2001) (attorney’s negligence in calculating the deadline for a federal habeas petition, resulting in a late filing, did not warrant equitable tolling), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1055 , 122 S.Ct. 1913 , 152 L.Ed.2d 823 (2002); see also Miranda v. Castro, 292 F.3d 1063, 1067-68 (9th Cir.) (appointed appellate counsel’s letter following direct review providing the Petitioner with an erroneous federal habeas deadline was not sufficient to warrant equitable tolling), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1003 , 123 S.Ct. 496 , 154 L.Ed.2d 399 (2002); Majoy v. Roe…
cited
Cited "see"
Abe v. Mahoney
See Frye v. Hickman, 273 F.3d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1055 , 122 S.Ct. 1913 , 152 L.Ed.2d 823 (2002).
cited
Cited "see"
Wade v. Terhune
See Frye v. Hickman, 273 F.3d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1055 , 122 S.Ct. 1913 , 152 L.Ed.2d 823 (2002).
cited
Cited "see"
Bishop v. Castro
See Frye v. Hickman, 273 F.3d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir.2001), cert denied, 535 U.S. 1055 , 122 S.Ct. 1913 , 152 L.Ed.2d 823 (2002).
cited
Cited "see"
Morris v. Newland
See Frye v. Hickman, 273 F.3d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir.2001), cert denied, 535 U.S. 1055 , 122 S.Ct. 1913 , 152 L.Ed.2d 823 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
Johnson v. Lewis
See Frye v. Hickman, 273 F.3d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir.2001) (attorney’s negligence in calculating the deadline for a federal habeas petition, resulting in a late filing, did not warrant equitable tolling), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1055 , 122 S.Ct. 1913 , 152 L.Ed.2d 823 (2002); see also Miranda v. Castro, 292 F.3d 1063, 1067-68 (9th Cir.2002) (appointed appellate counsel’s letter following direct review providing the petitioner with an erroneous federal habeas deadline was not sufficient to warrant equitable tolling), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1003 , 123 S.Ct. 496 , 154 L.Ed.2d 399 (2002); Majoy v.…
discussed
Cited "see"
Eulloqui v. Pliler
See Frye v. Hickman, 273 F.3d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir.) (as amended) (recognizing that the lack of access to library material does not automatically qualify as grounds for equitable tolling), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1055 , 122 S.Ct. 1913 , 152 L.Ed.2d 823 (2002); see also Miranda v. Castro, 292 F.3d 1063, 1068 (9th Cir.), (recognizing that attorney negligence in general does not constitute extraordinary circumstances sufficient to warrant equitable tolling), cert, denied, 537 U.S. 1003 , 123 S.Ct. 496 , 154 L.Ed.2d 399 (2002).
cited
Cited "see"
Tjiak Wie Wong v. Lamarque
See Frye v. Hickman, 273 F.3d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir.2001) (denying equitable tolling based on counsel’s negligence), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1055 , 122 S.Ct. 1913 , 152 L.Ed.2d 823 (2002).
cited
Cited "see"
Ratliff v. Smith
See Frye v. Hickman, 273 F.3d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir.2001) (denying equitable tolling based on counsel’s negligence), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1055 , 122 S.Ct. 1913 , 152 L.Ed.2d 823 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
Richmond v. Small
See Frye v. Hickman, 273 F.3d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir.2001) (as amended) (recognizing that the lack of access to library material does not automatically qualify as grounds for equitable tolling), cert denied, 535 U.S. 1055 , 122 S.Ct. 1913 , 152 L.Ed.2d 823 (2002); see also Wha-lem/Hunt v. Early, 233 F.3d 1146, 1148 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited "see"
Escobar v. Newland
See Frye v. Hickman, 273 F.3d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir.2001) (denying equitable tolling based on counsel’s negligence), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1055 , 122 S.Ct. 1913 , 152 L.Ed.2d 823 (2002); Miranda v. Castro, 292 F.3d 1063, 1067-68 (9th Cir.) (rejecting equitable tolling claim despite counsel’s miscalculation of the AJEDPA deadline), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 123 S.Ct. 496 , 154 L.Ed.2d 399 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
Dukes v. Garcia
See Frye v. Hickman, 273 F.3d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir.2001) (stating that neither miscalculation of the limitations period by defense counsel nor negligence in general constitute extraordinary circumstances sufficient to warrant equitable tolling), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 122 S.Ct. 1913 , 152 L.Ed.2d 823 (2000).
cited
Cited "see"
Conrotto v. A.C. Newland
See Frye v. Hickman, 273 F.3d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir.2001), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 122 S.Ct. 1913 , 152 L.Ed.2d 823 (2002); see also Fail v. Hubbard, 272 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir.2001).
cited
Cited "see"
Cowan v. Clarke
See Frye v. Hickman, 273 F.3d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 1913 , 152 L.Ed.2d 823 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
Cruz v. Small
See Frye v. Hickman, 273 F.3d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir.2001) (denying equitable tolling based on counsel’s negligence), cert, denied, - U.S.-, 122 S.Ct. 1913 , 152 L.Ed.2d 823 (2002); see also Miranda v. Castro, 292 F.3d 1063, 1067-68 (9th Cir.2002) (rejecting claim of equitable tolling despite counsel’s mistaken advice about AEDPA deadline).
cited
Cited "see"
Ibrahn Ben Miranda v. Ray Castro, Warden Attorney General of the State of California
See Frye v. Hickman, 273 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir.2001), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 1913 , 152 L.Ed.2d 823 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Davis v. Jones
Although “[e]quitable tolling may be warranted in instances of unprofessional attorney behavior . . . the AEDPA deadline will not be tolled for a garden variety claim of excusable attorney neglect or mistake.” Doe v. Busby, 661 F.3d at 1011-12 ; see also Frye v. Hickman, 273 F.3d 1144, 1145 (9th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct 1913 (2002) (A “miscalculation of the limitations period by . . . counsel and [counsel’s] negligence in general do not constitute extraordinary circumstances sufficient to warrant equitable tolling.”) (citations omitted); but see Stillman v. LaMarque, 319 F…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Patterson v. Lapinskas
Although “[e]quitable tolling may be warranted in instances of unprofessional attorney behavior . . . the AEDPA deadline will not be tolled for a garden variety claim of excusable attorney neglect or mistake.” Doe v. Busby, 661 F.3d at 1011-12 ; see also Frye v. Hickman, 273 F.3d 1144, 1145 (9th Cir. -5- 2001), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct 1913 (2002) (A “miscalculation of the limitations period by . . . counsel and [counsel’s] negligence in general do not constitute extraordinary circumstances sufficient to warrant equitable tolling.”) (citations omitted); but see Stillman v. LaMarque, 3…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Fain v. Mitchell
See Miranda v. Castro, 292 F.3d 1063, 1067-68 (9th Cir.) (rejecting claim of equitable tolling despite counsel’s mistaken advice about AEDPA deadline), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1003 , 123 S.Ct. 496 , 154 L.Ed.2d 399 (2002); see also Frye v. Hickman, 273 F.3d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir.2001) (denying equitable tolling based on counsel’s negligence), ce rt. denied, 535 U.S. 1055 , 122 S.Ct. 1913 , 152 L.Ed.2d 823 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ford v. Hubbard
See also Frye v. Hickman, 273 F.3d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1055 , 122 S.Ct. 1913 , 152 L.Ed.2d 823 (2002) ("[T]he miscalculation of the limitations period by ... counsel and his negligence in general do not constitute extraordinary circumstances sufficient to warrant equitable tolling.”); Kreutzer v. Bowersox, 231 F.3d 460, 463 (8th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 863 , 122 S.Ct. 145 , 151 L.Ed.2d 97 (2001) (stating that "counsel's confusion about the applicable statute of limitations does not warrant equitable tolling”); United States v. Saro, 252 F.3d 449, 455…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Stambaugh v. Duncan
Stambaugh has not alleged facts sufficient to establish that “external forces, rather than [his] lack of diligence, account for [his] failure to file a timely claim.” Miles, 187 F.3d at 1107 ; see also Frye v. Hickman, 273 F.3d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir.2001), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 1913 , 152 L.Ed.2d 823 (2002) (ruling that attorney negligence resulting in untimely filing of a section 2254 petition does not constitute extraordinary circumstances that warrant equitable tolling).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Harper
v.
California
v.
California
01-1302.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 13, 2002.
Published
Citer courts: Ninth Circuit (1)
Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.