Skip to main content
· 4/8/2008

Riddle v. Kemna

Citations

  • 523 F.3d 850
  • 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 7462
  • 2008 WL 927618

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that, “for purposes of applying 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), a pro se prisoner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is filed on the date it is delivered to prison authorities for mailing to the clerk of the court”
  • holding that, “for purposes of applying 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), a pro se prisoner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus is filed on the date it is delivered to prison authorities for mailing to the clerk of the court”
  • holding that, “for purposes of applying 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), a pro se prisoner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is filed on the date it is delivered to prison authorities for mailing to the clerk of the court”
  • stating that the 90 days is not applicable and the one-year statute of limitation under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 runs from the date procedendo issued if the petitioner’s direct appeal does not contain a claim that is reviewable by the Supreme Court
  • “Equitable tolling is an exceedingly narrow window of relief.” (quotation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Loken, Chief Judge, and Wollman, Murphy, Bye, Riley, Melloy, Smith, Colloton, Gruender, Benton, and Shepherd, Circuit Judges, en Banc

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.