Joseph Stancle v. Ivan Clay

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that a “petitioner must show diligence in seeking assistance with what he could not do alone.” (emphasis added) (citing Bills, 628 F.3d at 1100)
• denying equitable tolling because the petitioner received “continual assistance” from another inmate to file petitions
• explaining when two petitions filed in the same court 17 may toll the statute of limitations
• finding that because the petitioner “did not limit his second petition to an elaboration of 27 the facts and his second petition started a ‘new round,’ he is not entitled to statutory gap tolling for the [] days between his first and second superior court petitions.”
• reviewing de novo the denial of a petition on timeliness grounds
• reviewing de novo whether the stat ute of limitations should be equitably tolled

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).