Waldron-Ramsey v. Pacholke

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that mere “oversight, miscalculation or negligence on [the petitioner’s] part . . . preclude[s] the application of equitable tolling” (citation omitted)
• clarifying that this court’s standard for equita- ble tolling is consistent with the standard discussed in Pace
• holding that 10 petitioner was not entitled to equitable tolling for alleged deprivation of access to his legal materials 11 where he did not point to any specific instance in which he needed a particular document and could not 12 procure it
• reviewing de novo whether the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled
• characterizing the Ninth 7 Circuit's “application of the doctrine” as “sparing” and a “rarity”
• characterizing the Ninth Circuit's 3 “application of the doctrine” as “sparing” and a “rarity”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).