Case Name: Bradford K. ISLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Terry L. Stewart; Jeff Hood; Arizona Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-12-22
Citations: 84 F. App'x 903
Docket Number: No. 03-15858; D.C. No. CV-01-1567-MHM
Parties: Bradford K. ISLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Terry L. Stewart; Jeff Hood; Arizona Attorney General, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 84
Pages: 903–903

Head Matter:
Bradford K. ISLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Terry L. Stewart; Jeff Hood; Arizona Attorney General, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 03-15858.
D.C. No. CV-01-1567-MHM.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 8, 2003.
Decided Dec. 22, 2003.
Bradford K. Isley, pro se, Florence, AZ, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Kerri L. Chamberlin, AGAZ-Office of the Arizona Attorney General (Phoenix), Phoenix, AZ, for Respondents-Appellees.
Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Bradford K. Isley, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se the dismissal as untimely of his habeas corpus petition brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He contends that his petition was timely because his notice of post-conviction relief tolled the statute of limitations. A notice of post-conviction relief pursuant to Ariz. R.Crim. P. 32.4 is not a "properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review" under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2); it is only a preliminary step toward filing a petition that contains claims challenging a conviction or sentence. See Woodford v. Garceau, 538 U.S. 202, 123 S.Ct. 1398, 1403, 155 L.Ed.2d 363 (2003) (federal habeas case not commenced upon filing of motions for appointment of counsel and for stay). Accordingly, Isley's contention lacks merit.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.