Case Name: Cody William MARBLE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR the State of MONTANA; Mike Batista, Director, Department of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-05-06
Citations: 601 F. App'x 591
Docket Number: No. 14-35143
Parties: Cody William MARBLE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR the State of MONTANA; Mike Batista, Director, Department of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before: KLEINFELD, GOULD, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 601
Pages: 591–592

Head Matter:
Cody William MARBLE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR the State of MONTANA; Mike Batista, Director, Department of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 14-35143.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 4, 2015.
Filed May 6, 2015.
David F. Ness, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defenders of Montana, Great Falls, MT, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Micheál Samuel Wellenstein, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Montana Attorney General, Helena, MT, for Respondent-Appellees.
Before: KLEINFELD, GOULD, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Cody Marble, a Montana state prisoner, appeals the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition as time barred by the 1-year statute of limitations under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. We affirm.
1. We previously affirmed the decision of the district court that Marble's state habeas petition was not "properly filed" and therefore did not toll the 1-year limitations period. See Marble v. Attorney Gen. of Mont., 542 Fed.Appx. 559, 559 (9th Cir.2013) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)). We remanded for consideration only of equitable tolling. Id. The district court's prior decision on statutory tolling has become the law of the case and must be followed in subsequent proceedings in this case. See Herrington v. Cnty. of Sonoma, 12 F.3d 901, 904 (9th Cir.1993).
2. Turning to the issue of equitable tolling, Marble contends that he was affirmatively misled by the Montana Supreme Court and thus should receive equitable tolling for his untimely federal habeas petition. We disagree. To establish that he was affirmatively misled, Marble must point to affirmative inaccuracies in statements made to him by the Montana Supreme Court, not merely to his "misunderstanding of accurate information." See Ford v. Pliler, 590 F.3d 782, 788-89 (9th Cir.2009); see also Sossa v. Diaz, 729 F.3d 1225, 1235 (9th Cir.2013); United States v. Buckles, 647 F.3d 883, 892 (9th Cir.2011). Marble did not show any affirmative misstatements made by the Montana Supreme Court, and was not entitled to equitable tolling.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.