N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT ZAM EER

R . AZAM , Pe titione r - Appe lla nt, v. R IC K HILL, W arde n; e t a l., R

e sponde n t s - Appe lle e s . No. 12-15656 D.C . No. 5:10-c v-03900-EJD
M EM O R ANDUM *
Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Edwa rd J. Da vila , Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d July

10, 2014 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : N.R . SM ITH a

nd C HR ISTEN, C i rc uit Judge s, a nd PIER SOL, Se nior Distric t Judge
. ** W e re vie w a distric t c ourt’ s dismissa l of a ha be a s pe t ition a s untim e ly

de novo, Banjo v . Ay e rs , 614 F.3d 964, 967 (9th C ir. 2010), a n d its fa c tua l findings for c l e ar e rror, Stanc le v . C l ay , 692 F.3d 948, 953 (9th C ir. 2012). 

# FIL ED JUL 16 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble La wre nc e L. Pie rsol, Se nior Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of South Da kota , sitting by de signa

tion.Notwithsta nding thedistric t c ourt’ s inc orre c t a pplic ation of She rw ood v
. Tomk ins , 716 F.2d 632 (9th C ir. 1983), in dism issing Az am ’ s first fe de ra l ha be a s pe tition, se e He nde r

son v . J ohnson , 710 F.3d 872, 874 (9th C ir. 2013), Az am ’ s se c o nd fe de ra l ha

b e a s pe tition c annot re late ba c k to his first fe de ra l ha be a s pe tition. 1 Se e Rasbe rry

v . Garc ia , 448 F.3d 1150, 1155 (9th C ir. 2006) (“ [A] ha be a s pe tition file d a fte r the distric t c ourt dismi sse s a pre vious pe tition without pre j udic e for fa ilure to e xha

ust sta te re m e die s c annot re late ba c k to theorigina l ha be a s pe tition.” ). The re fore , his se c ond fe de ra l ha be a s pe tition wa s untim e ly
. Se e 28 U.S.C . § 2244(d)(1)
. Ne ve rthe le s s, Az a

m is e ntitle d to e quita

ble tolling. Se eButle r

v . Long , No. 10-55202, 2014 W

L 1717009, a

t *3, — F.3d —

(9th C ir. June 24, 2014). In dism issing Az am ’ s first fe de ra l ha be a s pe t ition, the

distric t c ourt fa ile d to c o nside r Az am ’ s re que st for a

sta y and did not give

Az am “ t he option to a

m e nd the m ixe d pe tition to rem ove the une xha uste d c la im s.” Id. The re fore , its dism issa l of Az am ’ s se c o nd ha be a s pe t ition a s untim e ly

wa s im prope r. Id. In suc h c irc um sta nc e s, “ the pe titione r is e ntitle d to e quita ble tolling of the

AEDPA sta

tute of lim ita

t ions from

1 Az am c l a im s , a nd the Gove rnm e nt a gre e s, tha t Az am ’ s first fe de ra l ha

be a s pe tition wa s a

m ixe d pe tition with exha uste d a nd une xha

uste d c la im s. The re fore , the d istric t c o urt’ s obliga

tions under He nde rson to “ grant le ave to a m e nd” a m ixe d pe tition “ and, if re que ste d, . . . c onside r a pe titione r’ s e ligibility for a sta y ” a pply to this c a s e . 710 F.3d a

t 874. -2-the d ate the m ixe d pe tition wa s dismi sse d until the date a ne w fe de ra l ha

be a s pe tition is file d, a s sum i ng ordina ry dilige nc e .” Id. (inte rna l quota tion m arks
om i tte d). The gove rnm e n t c la im s Az am wa ive d both there lat ion ba c k a nd e q uita ble tolling a rgum e nts. Howe ve r, in our disc re tion we find tha t Az am , a s a

pro se pe titione r, suffic i e ntly a l le ge d the se c la im s in his pe t itions. Se e Trigue ros v . Adams , 658 F.3d 983, 988 (9th C ir. 2011)
. 2 RE V E RSE D and RE M A NDE D
.

2 W e de c line to gra

nt Az a m ’ s re que st for a c e rtific ate of a ppe a l a bility a s to the re m a ining issue s ra ise d in his opening brie f. Se e Mille r-El v . C oc k re l l , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (A c e rtific ate of a ppe a la bility m a y only issue “ whe re a

pe titione r ha s m a de a

‘ substa ntia l showing of the

de nia l of a

c o nstitutiona

l right.’ ” ). -3-