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

B R YC E EVER

ETT PETER SON, Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt,
v. ATTOR NEY GENER

AL FOR THE STATE OF M ONTANA; JIM SALM ONSEN,

R e sponde nts-Appe lle e s. No. 19-35923 D.C . No. 9:17-c v-00019-DLC -KLD
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M o nta

na Dana L. C hriste nse n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm i tte d

Oc tobe r 8, 2020 Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : PAEZ a

nd R AW LINSON, C irc uit Judge s, a nd ANTOON, ** Distric t Judge
. Pe titioner B ry c e Eve re tt Pe te rson (Pe te rson) a ppe a ls thedistric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his fe de ra l ha

be a s pe tition a s tim e -barre d pursua nt to theone -y e ar statute 

# FIL ED
MAY27 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.

* * The Honora

ble John Antoon II, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judgefor the M iddle Distric t

of Florida , sitting by

de s igna tion.of lim ita

tions im pose d by the Antite rrorism

an d Effe c tive De ath Pe na lty Ac t (AEDPA). Pe t e rson c o nte nds tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d in holding tha t his fe de ra l ha be a s pe tition wa s untim e ly , a rguing tha

t the one -y e ar lim ita

tions pe riod wa s re se t whe n the sta

t e tria l c ourt issue d a

n am e nde d judgm e nt tha

t no longer re quire d Pe te rson to pa

y re stitution. B ut e ve n if the am e nde d judgm e nt re s e t the lim ita tions pe riod, Pe te rson
c onc e de s tha

t his fe d e ra l ha

be a s pe tition wa s untim e ly a bse nt e quita

ble tolling of the l im ita tions pe riod. 1 And Pe te rson did not e sta blish tha t the sta te tria l c ourt
a ffirm ative ly

m isle d him

or tha t a ny othe r e xtra ordina

ry c i rc um sta

nc e s pre ve nte d him from tim e ly filing his fe de ra l ha

be a s pe t ition. Se eMilam v . Harrington , 953 F.3d 1128, 1132 (9th C ir. 2020) (sta t ing tha t “ [a ] ha b e a s pe titioner is e ntitle d to
e quita ble tolling only

if he shows (1) tha

t he ha s be e n pursuing his rights dilige ntly , a

nd (2) tha t som e e xtra ordina

ry c irc um sta

nc e stood in his wa

y and

1 B e c a use the tim e line s s of Pe te rson’ s fe de ra l ha be a s pe tition hinge s on e quita ble tolling a

nd the sta te ha s fully

brie fe d the issue , we grant a c e rtific ate of a ppe a la bility (C OA) on whe the r Pe te rson should be a fforde d e quita

ble tolling. Se e C arte r v . Dav is , 946 F.3d 489, 522 (9th C ir. 2019) (pe r c uriam ) (e xpla ining tha t “ whe n a distric t c ourt de nie s a ha

be a s pe tition on proc e dura l grounds without re a c hing theprisone r’ s unde rly ing c onstitutiona l c la im , a C OA c an issueonly if the p risone r shows tha

t (1) jurists of re a son would find it de bat a ble whe the r the distric t c o urt wa s c o rre c t in its proc e dura l ruling, a nd (2) jurists of re a son would find it debata

ble whe the r the pe tition sta te s a va lid c la im

of the de nia l of a c onstitutiona

l right” ) (c ita

t ion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). 2pre v e nte d tim e ly filing” ) (c ita

tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). W e grant Pe te rson’ s re que st to e xpa nd the C OA to c onside r the tim e line ss of his judic i a l bia s c la im . The distric t c ourt e rre d by c onstruing Pe te rson’ s judic ia l bia s c la im

a s a n a c tua l innoc e nc e c la im , a nd the n de te rm ining tha

t the c la im

wa s untim e l y . Pursua

nt to 28 U.S.C . § 2244(d)(1)(D), thedistric t c ourt should ha ve
m e a sure d the tim e line ss of Pe te rson’ s judic ia l bia s c la im from “ the dat e on whic h the fa c tua l pre dic ate of the c la im or c la i m s pre se nte d c ould ha ve be e n disc o ve re d through thee xe rc ise of due dilige nc e .” Pe t e rson suffic i e ntly e sta blishe d tha t he disc ove re d the vita l fa c ts unde rly ing his judic i a l bia s c la im in Oc tobe r, 2016, whe n he obta ine d inform ation c onc e rning thejudge ’ s a lle g e d involve m e nt with the vic t im of Pe t e rson’ s offe nse s. Thus, Pe t e rson’ s judic ia l bia s c la im se t forth in his ha be a s pe tition file d on Fe brua ry 17, 2017, wa s tim e ly
. Se e Ford v . Gonzale z , 683 F.3d 1230, 1235 (9th C ir. 2012) (e xpla ining tha t a ha be a s pe titioner’ s c la im

is tim e ly ba se d on thedisc ove ry

of “ vita l fa c ts” tha

t “ c ould not ha

ve be e n known by the d ate the a

ppe lla t e proc e ss e n de d” ) (c i tation a n d inte rna l quota

tion m arks
om i tte d). Ac c o rdingly , we re m and the c la im to thedistric t c ourt for furthe r proc e e dings. W e de ny e xpa nsion of theC OA to e n c om pa ss Pe t e rson’ s c la im that the distric t c o urt a

buse d its disc re tion in deny ing his re q ue st for a n e xte nsion to file
3obje c tions to the m a gistra te judge ’ s re port a

nd re c om m e ndation be c a

use it is not de bata ble tha t the distric t c ourt prope rly e xe rc ise d its disc re tion. Se eC arte r , 946 F.3d at 522. Thedistric t c ourt de nie d Pe t e rson’ s re que st for a 45-da y e xte nsion be c a use it ha d a l re a dy

grante d two prior e xte nsions for Pe te rson to file his obje c tions. M ore ove r, the distric t c ourt a fforde d Pe t e rson two a d ditional we e ks to file his obje c tions in lie

u of the re que ste d

forty -five da

y e xte nsion. AFFIRM E D in par t, RE V E RSE D in par t, and RE M ANDE D.

4