Filed: Aug. 19, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 09-11013 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT AUGUST 19, 2010 Non-Argument Calendar JOHN LEY _ CLERK D. C. Docket No. 08-00330-CV-WS-C CALVIN LAMAR MIDDLETON, Petitioner-Appellant, versus TONY PATTERSON, Respondent-Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama _ (August 19, 2010) Before EDMONDSON, CARNES and MARTIN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: In finding
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 09-11013 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT AUGUST 19, 2010 Non-Argument Calendar JOHN LEY _ CLERK D. C. Docket No. 08-00330-CV-WS-C CALVIN LAMAR MIDDLETON, Petitioner-Appellant, versus TONY PATTERSON, Respondent-Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama _ (August 19, 2010) Before EDMONDSON, CARNES and MARTIN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: In finding ..
More
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 09-11013 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
AUGUST 19, 2010
Non-Argument Calendar
JOHN LEY
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 08-00330-CV-WS-C
CALVIN LAMAR MIDDLETON,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
TONY PATTERSON,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Alabama
_________________________
(August 19, 2010)
Before EDMONDSON, CARNES and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
In finding that Calvin Lamar Middleton’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus
petition is time-barred, and that he is not entitled to equitable tolling of the
applicable deadline, the district court reasoned that even if Middleton did not learn
that his direct appeal was denied until December 2000, he still had until January 7,
2001 to file his petition. The district court, however, failed to address Middleton’s
assertion that he did not receive his case file from his attorney until January 2001.
In light of that omission, as well as the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Holland
v. Florida, 560 U.S. __,
130 S. Ct. 2549 (2010), we vacate the judgment of the
district court and remand for further consideration. We do so without implying
any view on how the tolling issue should be decided on remand.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
2