Sigala v. Bravo

How courts have described this case

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

• determining that actions by a defendant's counsel, including a public defender, “cannot properly be [ ] action attributable” to the State for purposes of § 2244(d)(1)(B)
• explaining that “a litigant seeking equitable tolling bears the burden of establishing” its applicability
• explaining that the mailbox rule “only enlarges the filing time when the period for acting runs from the service of a notice by mail” (quoting Rouse v. Lee, 339 F.3d 238, 245 (4th Cir. 2003))
• “Sigala’s position is unavailing because the impediment he alleges is not ‘State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States.’”
• without addressing the diligence prong, dismissing Plaintiff’s claim when he failed to meet his burden of showing extraordinary circumstances
• “[Petitioner’s] position is unavailing because the impediment he alleges is not “State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States.” (citing § 2244(d)(1)(B)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).