Steven Ray Ritchie v. MIKE FERRITER; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MONTANA, Esquire

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEVEN RAY RITCHIE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
MIKE FERRITER; ATTORNEY
GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF
MONTANA, Esquire,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 10-35666
D.C. No. 9:09-CV-00177-DWM-
JCL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted April 10, 2012
Seattle, Washington
Before: D.W. NELSON, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges
Petitioner Steven Ritchie appeals the dismissal of his federal habeas petition
as untimely. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We
affirm in part, and vacate and remand in part.
FILED
MAY 10 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Assuming without deciding that Ritchie’s application for sentence review
could toll the statute of limitations, that his application was properly filed, and thus
that the statute of limitations was tolled during the pendency of his sentence review
application, nevertheless Ritchie’s federal habeas petition still would be time-
barred without the benefit of equitable tolling. We therefore need not consider
separately whether statutory tolling is available pursuant to Wall v. Kohli, 131
S.Ct. 1278 (2011).
The district court concluded that equitable tolling did not apply before our
decision in Bills v. Clark, 628 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2010). We remand for
consideration of equitable tolling pursuant to the heavily fact-dependent Bills
standard, id. at 1100–01, expressing no view as to whether such tolling is
warranted in this case. The district court shall hold an evidentiary hearing, if
necessary, to determine whether equitable tolling applies.
Each party shall bear their own costs.
AFFIRMED in part; VACATED and REMANDED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --