N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
M IC HAEL PATTER SON,

Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt,
v. W ILLIAM HUTC H INGS; ATTOR NEY GENER AL FOR THE STATE OF NEVADA, R e sponde nts-Appe lle e s. No. 20-15635 D.C . No. 2:17-c v-02131-JC M -EJY
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Jam e s C . M aha

n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d

Se pte m be r 3, 2021 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER , R AW LINSON, a

nd B Y B EE, C irc uit Judge s. Appe lla nt M ic h a e l Patte rson a

ppe a ls from a

ruling by the distric t c ourt dism issing his fe de ra l ha

be a s pe tition a s untim e ly
. 

# FIL ED SEP 22 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

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

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

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.W e have a ppe lla te jurisdic tion pursua

nt to 28 U.S.C . §§ 1291 & 2253. W e
re vie w de novo the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of a pe tition for writ of ha

b e a s c orpus, C lark v . Murphy , 331 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th C ir. 2003), inc luding de nia l of the writ on sta tute of lim ita

tions grounds, N

oblev . Adams , 676 F.3d 1180, 1181 (9th C ir. 2012). A distric t c ourt’ s de c ision to raise sua sponte the issue of tim e line s s in a ha be a s c a se is re vie we d for a n a buse of disc re tion. Se e Day v . Mc Donough , 547 U.S. 198, 211 (2006). Pa tte rson m ake s two a

rgum e nts. First, Pa

tte rson c onte nds tha

t the distric t
c ourt a buse d its disc re tion by

ra ising sua sponte

the issue of tim e line ss re g arding his fe de ra l pe tition for ha be a s c orpus a fte r the State m isc a lc ulate d the sta tute of lim ita tions by a single da y in its mo tion to dism

iss. Se c ond, he a sse rts tha t, irre spe c t ive of the first issue , his dire c t a ppe a l c ounse l’ s m otion for a ppointm e nt of
c ounse l for post-c onvic tion ha be a s proc e e dings should ha ve qua lifie d a s a

“ prope rly file d a pplic ation for post-c onvic tion or othe r c olla te ra l re vie w” and tolle d the sta

tute of lim ita

tions unde r 28 U.S.C . § 2244. W e a ffirm
. A distric t c o urt ha s disc re tion to ra ise tim e line ss issue s in ha be a s c a se s sua sponte a s long a s it (1) “ a c c ord[s] the pa rtie s fa i r notic e and a

n opportunity

to pre s e nt the ir positions,” (2) “ a ssure [s] itse lf tha t the pe titione r is not signific antly pre j udic e d by

the de l ay e d foc us on thelim i tation issue ,” and (3) “ ‘ de te rm ine [s]
2whe the r the inte re sts of justic e would be be tte r se rve d’ by a ddre ssing them e rits or by dism issing the

pe tition a s tim e ba

rre d.” Day , 547 U.S. a

t 210–11 (quoting Granbe rry

v . Gre e r , 481 U.S. 129, 136 (1987)). He re , the distric t c ourt provide d Pa tte rson notic e and a

n opportunity

to re spond, found tha

t the State ’ s e rror
am ounte d to a

sim ple m isc a lc ulation tha

t did not pre

judic e Pa tte rson, a

nd ide ntifie d the s tat e and fe de ra l inte re sts a s soc iate d with he aring tim e l y file d pe t itions. Se e Fe rguson v . Palmate e r , 321 F.3d 820, 823 (9th C ir. 2003). Ac c ordingly , the distric t c o urt did not a

buse its disc re tion whe n it ra ise d the issue of tim e line ss. The Antite rrorism

and Effe c tive De at

h Pe n a lty Ac t of 1996 (AEDPA) provide s for tolling of the fe de ra l sta

tute of lim ita

tions from

the m om e nt a

t whic h a pe titione r “ prope rly ” file s a n a pplic at ion for post-c onvic tion or othe r c olla te ra l
re vie w until the

sta te post-c o nvic tion judgme nt be c om e s fina l upon issua nc e of the
re m ittitur. 28 U.S.C
. § 2244(d); se e J e ffe rson v . Budge , 419 F.3d 1013, 1015 n.2 (9th C ir. 2005). De t e rm i ning whe the r an a pplic at ion is “

p rope rly file d” is a

m atte r of sta te la w. Se e Ze pe d a v . W alk e r , 5 81 F.3d 1013, 1016 (9th C ir. 2009) (c iting Artuz v . Be nne t t , 531 U.S. 4, 8 (2000)). As a ge ne ra l m atte r, the loc a l la w s a nd rule s tha t de t e rm ine prope r filing ofte n ide n tify suc h spe c ific s a s “ the form of the doc um e nt.” Artuz , 531 U.S. a t 8. And, “m otion[s] for a ppointm e nt of
c ounse l . . . ge ne ra lly

are not dire c t

re que sts for judic ia l re vie w of a judgm e nt a

nd
3do not provide a sta te c ourt with a

uthority to orde r re lie f from

a judgm e nt.” W

all
v . K holi , 562 U.S. 545, 556 n.4 (2011). Ne va da doe s not provide

ha b e a s c o unse l a s a

m atte r of right a

nd re que sting
c ounse l doe s not sta

rt the proc e ss of c olla

te ra l re vie w. Ne v. R e v. Stat . § 34.750. R athe r, any

pe tition for the

writ of ha

be a s c orpus “ m

ust be title d ‘ Pe tition for W rit of Ha be a s C orpus (Postc onvic tion)’ and be in substa ntia lly the form se t forth in [statute ] .” Ne v. R e v. Stat. § 34.730. Appe l la nt’ s m otion for a

ppointm e nt of
c ounse l did ne ithe r. Appe lla nt’ s m otion sim

ply doe s not qua l ify a s a

pe tition for the w rit of ha

be a s c orpus unde r Ne va d a la w, a nd nothing in the

re c ord or c a se la

w sugge s ts tha

t a ny Ne va da judge would re c ogniz e it a s suc h a pe t ition, le t

a l one a

“ prope rly file d” pe tition. The

m otion for a

ppointm e nt of c o unse l, the re fore , did not toll the

sta tute of lim ita

tions unde r AEDPA, a

nd we a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s de te rm i nation tha

t Appe lla nt’ s pe tition wa s untim e ly
. AFFIRM E D.

4