green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
15.2 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 2000 ·
…at both times, the conditions that led to the adoption of the mailbox rule are present; the prisoner is powerless and unable to control the time of delivery of documents to the court.
⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 2001 ·
…petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied on the merits and for lack of diligence.
at p. 1087
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2000 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2000
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "but see"
Melancon v. Kaylo
But see Saffold v. Newland, 224 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir.2000) (holding that all time from the commencement of the collateral attack is excluded under § 2244(d)(2)).
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Romero v. Roe
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
we therefore decline to adopt a rule that would require a prisoner to have filed his federal habeas petition before the california supreme court ruled on the merits of his claim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bellman v. Cain
Saffold v. Newland, 224 F.3d 1087, 1091 (9th Cir. 2000) (applying prison mailbox rule to state court petitions as well as federal petitions).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ford v. Hubbard
See, e.g., Huizar v. Carey, 273 F.3d 1220, 1222 (9th Cir.2001); Saffold v. Newland, 224 F.3d 1087, 1091 (9th Cir.2000), vacated on other grounds sub nom, Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214 , 122 S.Ct. 2134 , 153 L.Ed.2d 260 (2002).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
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
See, e.g., Huizar v. Carey, 273 F.3d 1220, 1222 (9th Cir.2001); Saffold v. Newland, 224 F.3d 1087, 1091 (9th Cir.2000), vacated on other grounds sub nom, Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214 , 122 S.Ct. 2134 , 153 L.Ed.2d 260 (2002).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hardiman v. Galaza
Apr. 27, 2001) (citing Saffold v. Newland, 224 F.3d 1087, 1091 (9th Cir.2000)); see also Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270-71 , 108 S.Ct. 2379 , 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Donald Ray Patterson v. Terry L. Stewart
We disavow the dicta to the contrary set forth in such cases as Dictado v. Ducharme, *1247 244 F.3d 724, 726 (9th Cir.2001); Green v. White, 223 F.3d 1001, 1003 (9th Cir.2000); Saffold v. Newland, 224 F.3d 1087, 1088 (9th Cir.2000); and Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1105 (9th Cir.1999). 6 .
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Tony Eugene Saffold v. Anthony Newland
(4×)
Order 2 The majority opinion of this court and Judge O'Scannlain's dissent thereform, filed on July 17, 2000, slip op. at 8271 [224 F.3d at 1087], reported at 24 F.3d 1087 , are hereby amended as follows: 3 Majority opinion: Insert a new footnote 6, to be indicated at the end of the first sentence of the last paragraph on slip op. at 8278 [224 F.3d at 1090] (ending " 'Petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED on the merits and for lack of diligence.' ").
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Reynolds v. Cambra
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 , 108 S.Ct. 2379 , 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988) (holding that a pro se prisoner’s pleading is deemed filed at the moment it is delivered to prison authorities for forwarding to the district court); Saffold v. Newland, 224 F.3d 1087, 1091 (9th Cir.2000) (explaining that "mailbox rule” applies to pro se prisoners filing habeas petitions in both federal and state court because "the prisoner is powerless and unable to control the time of delivery of documents to the court.”). 2 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Marcia Ellen Bunney v. Gwendolyn Mitchell, Warden of the Central California Women's Facility
Saffold v. Newland, 224 F.3d 1087, 1088 (9th Cir.2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gibson v. Klinger
Saffold v. Newland, 224 F.3d 1087, 1089 (9th Cir. 2000) (concluding limitations period should toll in the interests of comity when state court reaches the merits).
discussed
Cited "see"
Willis v. Fhuere
See Saffold v. Newland, 224 F.3d 1087, 1091 (9th Cir. 2000) (applying prison mailbox rule to state court petitions as well as federal petitions). denial of a constitutional right pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (2).
cited
Cited "see"
Black v. Clarke
See Saffold v. Newland, 224 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir.2000), cert. granted, - U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 393 , 151 L.Ed.2d 297 (2001); Welch v. Newland, 267 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir.2001).
discussed
Cited "see"
Rasmussen v. Alameda
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Saffold, 224 F.3d at 1090 (concluding petitioner was entitled to tolling under § 2244(d)(2) where dismissal was on the merits and for untimeliness).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Pablo Fernandez v. Christopher Artuz
The Ninth Circuit applies the prison mailbox rule to determine when a state petition is “properly filed” for AEDPA tolling purposes: “we [have] squarely held that the mailbox rule applies with equal force to the filing of state as well as federal petitions, because ‘[a]t both times, the conditions that led to the adoption of the mailbox rule are present; the prisoner is powerless and unable to control the time of delivery of documents to the court.’ ” Anthony v. Cambra, 236 F.3d 568, 575 (9th Cir.2000) (citation omitted); see also Saffold v. Newland, 224 F.3d 1087, 1091 (9th Cir.20…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Tony Eugene Saffold
v.
Anthony Newland
v.
Anthony Newland
99-15541.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Jul 17, 2000.
Published
224 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2000)
TONY EUGENE SAFFOLD, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
ANTHONY NEWLAND, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 99-15541
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Argued and Submitted February 14, 2000
Filed July 17, 2000
1
NOTE: SEE AMENDED OPINION OF MAY 23, 2001 AT 250 F.3d 1262.