Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

654 F.3d 902

Docket No. 08-15943.

Souliotes v. Evans

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued and Submitted Feb. 12, 2010.

Filed Aug. 17, 2011.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 2011-08-17

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently May 2015

4 federal appellate ·

3 counsel of record

Relies on Lee v. Lampert · Souliotes v. Evans

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2011-08-17

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Randall S. Luskey, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, San Francisco, CA, for the petitioner-appellant.

¶2Kathleen A. McKenna, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General of California, Fresno, CA, for the respondents-appellees.

¶3Sheryl Gordon McCloud, Law Offices of Sheryl Gordon McCloud, Seattle, WA; Bob Barr, Atlanta, GA; Matthew D. Brown, Cooley Godward Kronish LLP, San Francisco, CA, for the amici.

¶4Before: M. MARGARET McKEOWN and MARSHA S. BERZON,* Circuit Judges, and THOMAS S. ZILLY,… Senior District Judge.

¶7ORDER

¶8In light of the intervening en banc decision in Lee v. Lampert, 653 F.3d 929 (9th Cir.2011) (en banc), we vacate our opinion in Souliotes v. Evans, 622 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir.2010), reverse the district court’s dismissal of Souliotes’s habeas petition as untimely, and remand for proceedings consistent with Lee.

¶9We also vacate our order of limited remand issued on May 25, 2011, with the understanding that the district court will conduct whatever proceedings are necessary, in an expedited manner, to determine whether any of Souliotes’s habeas claims may be addressed on the merits.

¶10REVERSED and REMANDED.

/654/f3d/902 · .json · Public domain