N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT ANTHONY HILL, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt,
v. DOM INGO UR IB E, Jr., W arde n; JER R Y B R OW N, R

e sponde n t s - Appe lle e s . No. 11-55559 D.C . No. 3:09-c v-01327-LAB
C AB
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Larry A. B urns, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

April 7, 2014 * * Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : THOM AS, M . SM ITH, JR ., a nd C H R ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. Pe titione r Anthony Hill a ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s de n ia l of his fe de ra l ha be a s pe tition. W e re m and the c a se for furthe r proc e e dings. B e c a use the pa rtie s
are fam ilia

r with the h i story of this c a se , we ne e d not re c ount it he re . 

# FIL E D
APR 15 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).1. W e grant Hill’ s m otion to e xpa n d the c e rtific a te of a

ppe a l a bility a s to the i ssue of whe the r he is e ntitle d to e quita ble tolling due

to a ttorne y a ba ndonm e n t. B e c a use tha t que stion m ay

involvede ve lopm e nt of the re c ord a nd be c a use the distric t c o urt ha s not ha d the opportunity to c onside r it fully , we re m and to the distric t c o urt for its de te rm i nation of theque stion in the first insta n c e . 2. Following the

e n try of judgm e nt in thedistric t c ourt, we de c ide d Le e
v . Lampe rt , 653 F.3d 929 (9th C ir. 2011) (e n ba nc ), whic h a ffe c ts the princ iple on whic h the distric t c ourt ba s e d its de c ision. The W arde n ha s re que ste d tha

t we
re m and to thedistric t c o urt the c e rtifie d issue of whe the r Hill’ s a c tua l innoc e nc e
c la im sa ve s his untime ly

fe de ra l ha

be a s pe tition in light of the sta nda rds e nunc iate d in Le e . In Le e , we he ld tha t “ whe re an othe rwise tim e -barre d ha be a s pe titione r de m onstra

te s tha t it is mo re like ly

tha n not tha t no re a sona

ble juror would ha

ve found him

guilty be y ond a re a sona ble doubt, thepe titione r m ay pa s s through the Sc hlup [ v . De lo , 513 U.S. 298 (1995)] gate way and ha ve his c onstitutiona

l c la im s he ard on the m e rits.” Le e , 653 F.3d a t 937. The re fore , pursua nt to theW arde n’ s

-2-re que s t, we a lso re m and the que stion of whe the r Hill’ s c la im of a c tua l innoc e nc e
e xc use s the untim e ly

pe tition under Le e . 1 Ea c h pa rty sha ll be a r its own c osts. V ACAT E D AND RE M ANDE D.

1 W e note tha

t in its De c e m

be r 16, 2011 orde r de ny i ng Hill’ s m otion for le ave to proc e e d in forma pauperis on a ppe a l, the distric t c ourt a c knowle dge d our de c ision in Le e and sta

t e d tha t Hill’ s a c tua l innoc e nc e argum e nt would still fa il unde r that c a se . W e l e ave the que stion of whe the r to orde r a d ditiona l brie fing or de ve lopm e nt of the re c ord on this que s tion to the distric t c ourt. -3-