Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Brown v. Angelone, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded the district court's order denying Benjamin Brown's petition for habeas corpus relief. The district court had determined sua sponte that Brown's claims were time-barred under the one-year statute of limitations, without giving Brown notice or an opportunity to respond. However, the Fourth Circuit recently ruled in Hill v. Braxton that district courts must provide such a warning unless it is undisputed that the petition cannot be salvaged by equitable tolling or other circumstances. Because it was not indisputable in Brown's case, the Fourth Circuit remanded to the district court to provide Brown with the required notice and opportunity to respond.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-02-08 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 01-7709

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded the district court's order denying Benjamin Brown's petition for habeas corpus relief. The district court had determined sua sponte that Brown's claims were time-barred under the one-year statute of limitations, without giving Brown notice or an opportunity to respond. However, the Fourth Circuit recently ruled in Hill v. Braxton that district courts must provide such a warning unless it is undisputed that the petition cannot be salvaged by equitable tolling or other circumstances. Because it was not indisputable in Brown's case, the Fourth Circuit remanded to the district court to provide Brown with the required notice and opportunity to respond.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    1 views2 pages

    Brown v. Angelone, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded the district court's order denying Benjamin Brown's petition for habeas corpus relief. The district court had determined sua sponte that Brown's claims were time-barred under the one-year statute of limitations, without giving Brown notice or an opportunity to respond. However, the Fourth Circuit recently ruled in Hill v. Braxton that district courts must provide such a warning unless it is undisputed that the petition cannot be salvaged by equitable tolling or other circumstances. Because it was not indisputable in Brown's case, the Fourth Circuit remanded to the district court to provide Brown with the required notice and opportunity to respond.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    BENJAMIN BROWN,
    Petitioner-Appellant,
    v.
    RONALD ANGELONE, Director of
    Corrections,
    Respondent-Appellee.

    No. 01-7709

    Appeal from the United States District Court


    for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
    Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge.
    (CA-01-1385-AM)
    Submitted: January 28, 2002
    Decided: February 8, 2002
    Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    COUNSEL
    Benjamin Brown, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See


    Local Rule 36(c).

    BROWN v. ANGELONE

    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Benjamin Brown seeks to appeal the district courts order denying
    relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2254 (West 1994 &
    Supp. 2001). For the reasons set forth below, we vacate and remand
    for further proceedings.
    The district court, acting sua sponte, determined from the face of
    Browns petition that his claims were barred by the one-year limitations period set forth in 28 U.S.C.A. 2244(d) (West Supp. 2001) and
    dismissed the action without giving Brown notice or an opportunity
    to respond. Our recent decision in Hill v. Braxton, No. 00-7408, ___
    F.3d ___, 2002 WL 45893 (4th Cir. Jan. 14, 2002), now requires the
    district court to provide such a warning "unless it is indisputably clear
    from the materials presented to the district court that the petition is
    untimely and cannot be salvaged by equitable tolling principles or any
    of the circumstances enumerated in 2244(d)(1)." Id. at *5.
    Because it is not "indisputably clear" that Brown cannot salvage his
    petition, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, grant a certificate of appealability, vacate the district courts order, and remand to
    the district court to provide Brown with the notice and opportunity to
    respond to which he is now entitled pursuant to Hill. We dispense
    with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
    would not aid the decisional process.
    VACATED AND REMANDED

    You might also like