Michael Paul Ramos v. James A. Yates

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL PAUL RAMOS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JAMES A. YATES,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 09-55031
D.C. No. 3:05-cv-01712-MMA-
JMA
Southern District of California,
San Diego
ORDER
Before: KLEINFELD, WARDLAW and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The memorandum disposition filed on February 17, 2010, is amended as
follows:
After the second paragraph, which ends on page 2, insert the following
paragraph:
Although we have held that equitable tolling may be
warranted in cases pending when Pace was decided, where
petitioners “relied in good faith on then-binding circuit precedent
in making his tactical decision to delay filing a federal habeas
petition,” Harris v. Carter, 515 F.3d 1051, 1053 (9th Cir. 2008),
FILED
APR 12 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
this is not such a case. See also Townsend v. Knowles, 562 F.3d
1200, 1206 (9th Cir. 2009). Unlike the petitioners in Harris and
Townsend, whose petitions became untimely the moment Pace
was decided, Ramos would have had 124 days after Pace became
binding law to file a “protective” petition in federal court. See
Pace, 544 U.S. at 417.
With this amendment, the panel has voted to deny the petition for rehearing.
The petition for rehearing is DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing or
rehearing en banc will be entertained.

-- 2 of 2 --