Tyrone Swain v. Larry Small , 455 F. App'x 759 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             OCT 27 2011
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    TYRONE F. SWAIN, a.k.a. Tyrone                   No. 09-55342
    Franklin Swain,
    D.C. No. 2:08-cv-04186-GAF
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.                                             MEMORANDUM *
    LARRY SMALL,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    Gary A. Feess, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted October 25, 2011 **
    Before:        TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    California state prisoner Tyrone F. Swain appeals from the district court’s
    judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have
    jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we reverse and remand.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    Swain contends the district court erred by dismissing the majority of the
    claims in his habeas petition as time-barred under the Antiterrorism and Effective
    Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). The state concedes the petition was
    timely. Because we agree the petition was timely, we reverse and remand for the
    district court to consider on the merits those claims dismissed as untimely. See
    Burton v. Stewart, 
    549 U.S. 147
    , 156-57 (2007) (per curiam) (the AEDPA
    limitations period begins to run when the conviction and sentence become final).
    Swain also argues that his conviction violated the Double Jeopardy Clause.
    In light of the remand, we decline to expand the certificate of appealability
    (“COA”) to reach this issue. The denial is without prejudice to Swain’s right to
    move for a COA as to this claim in any future appeal. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e).
    REVERSED and REMANDED.
    2                                     09-55342
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-55342

Citation Numbers: 455 F. App'x 759

Judges: Gould, Rawlinson, Trott

Filed Date: 10/27/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/5/2023