Molo v. Johnson

How courts have described this case

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

• determining that the statute of limitations does not make the writ inadequate or ineffective because “nothing prevents] [a petitioner] from filing a petition before the limitations period expire[s]”
• finding the effectiveness of direct appeal counsel in state court “is not relevant to the question of tolling the AEDPA’s statute of limitations.”
• providing whether petitioner “had effective assistance of counsel on direct appeal in state court is not relevant to the question of tolling the statute of limitations”
• reviewing a district court’s denial of equitable tolling for abuse of discretion but 15 noting that de novo review applies where district court denies equitable tolling as a matter of 16 law
• reviewing a district court’s denial of equitable tolling for abuse of discretion but 15 noting that de novo review applies where district court denies equitable tolling as a matter of 16 law
• “Without deciding whether proof of factual innocence would toll the limitations period, we find that Molo does not show that he was factually innocent.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).