green
Positive treatment
3.6 score
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Paul Winestock, Jr.
Ct. 1793, 155 L.Ed.2d 677 (2003); see also Workman v. Bell, 227 F.3d 331, 334-35 (6th Cir.2000) (en banc) (addressing motion to recall mandate).
discussed
Cited "see"
Frank Mendoza v. State of Minnesota
See Cobas v. Burgess, 306 F.3d 441, 444 (6th Cir.2002) (rejecting equitable tolling where petitioner alleged lack of proficiency in English but had submitted court filings in readable English), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 984 , 123 S.Ct. 1793 , 155 L.Ed.2d 677 (2003); Rouse v. Lee, 339 F.3d 238, 248 (4th Cir.2003) (en banc) (rejecting equitable tolling where petitioner alleged health condition but did not show that it had disabled him during substantial part of limitation period); Cross-Bey, 322 F.3d at 1015 (rejecting equitable tolling where petitioner alleged lack of legal knowledge and legal res…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sudberry v. Warden, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
See Allen v. Yukins, 366 F.3d 396, 403 (6th Cir.) (quoting Rose v. Dole, 945 F.2d 1331, 1335 (6th Cir.1991)) (“ignorance of the law alone is not sufficient to warrant equitable tolling”), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 865 , 125 S.Ct. 200 , 160 L.Ed.2d 109 (2004); see also Cobas v. Burgess, 306 F.3d 441, 444 (6th Cir.2002) (“[A]n inmate’s lack of legal training, his poor education, or even his illiteracy does not give a court reason to toll the statute of limitations”), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 984 , 123 S.Ct. 1793 , 155 L.Ed.2d 677 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Carlos Mendoza v. Tom L. Carey, Warden
Dist. of Cal.(Kelly), 163 F.3d 530 (9th Cir.1998). 6 Allen v. Lewis, 255 F.3d 798 (9th Cir.2001); see also Valverde v. Stinson, 224 F.3d 129, 133 (2nd Cir.2000) ("If the person seeking equitable tolling has not exercised reasonable diligence in attempting to file after the extraordinary circumstances began, the link of causation between the extraordinary circumstances and the failure to file is broken, and the extraordinary circumstances therefore did not prevent filing."). 7 Miranda v. Castro, 292 F.3d 1063, 1065 (9th Cir.2002). 8 Kane v. Espitia, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 407 , 163 L.Ed.2d 10 …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Young
v.
Alameida, Director, California Department of Corrections
v.
Alameida, Director, California Department of Corrections
02-9030.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 21, 2003.
538 U.S. 984
2003 U.S. LEXIS 3046
Cited by 12 opinions | Published
YOUNG
v.
ALAMEIDA, DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS.
No. 02-9030.
Supreme Court of United States.
April 21, 2003.
1
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT.
2
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.