Laurson v. Leyba

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a state inmate’s claim that his guilty plea was involuntary was not a claim of factual innocence necessary to equitably toll the statutory period
• holding that when the district court denies habeas relief based on timeliness, the court of appeals can issue a certificate of appealability only if the district court’s ruling on timeliness is at least reasonably debatable
• holding that when the district court denies a habeas petition based on timeliness, the court of appeals can issue a certificate of appeala-bility only if the district court’s ruling on timeliness is at least reasonably debatable
• recognizing that unfamiliarity with the English language does not toll limitations period
• noting that actual innocence means factual innocence and that petitioner's claim his guilty plea was involuntary did not assert actual innocence
• noting that COA is required to appeal denial of a true Rule 60(b) motion filed in a habeas proceeding

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).