The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
10-16986•Jeremy Thomas Clark v. Mike Martel
10-16986Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOct 5, 2011
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEREMY THOMAS CLARK,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
MIKE MARTEL,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 10-16986
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-02949-LKK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence K. Karlton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 27, 2011**
Before: HAWKINS, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Jeremy Thomas Clark appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as
untimely. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
FILED
OCT 5 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
10-16986 2
Clark contends his petition is not subject to AEDPA’s statute of limitations,
because he is actually innocent in the sense that the Information, jury charge, and
jury verdict forms only permitted a finding of guilt for second degree murder, and
therefore he was improperly found guilty of first degree murder. The district court
properly dismissed the habeas petition as untimely as it was filed after the one-year
statutory limitations period had ended. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Clark presents no
new evidence of actual innocence sufficient to excuse his untimely filing. See Lee
v. Lampert, No. 09-35276, 2011 WL 3275947, at *6 (9th Cir. August 2, 2011).
“[A]ctual innocence means factual innocence, not mere legal insufficiency.”
Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 623 (1998) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
We construe appellant’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the
certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R.
22-1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.