Filed: May 25, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-30565 Summary Calendar LARRY TRIGGS, Petitioner-Appellant, versus BURL CAIN, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 97-CV-2430-K May 23, 2000 Before GARWOOD, HIGGINBOTHAM, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Larry Triggs, Louisiana inmate #66331, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as time-barred by the one-y
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-30565 Summary Calendar LARRY TRIGGS, Petitioner-Appellant, versus BURL CAIN, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 97-CV-2430-K May 23, 2000 Before GARWOOD, HIGGINBOTHAM, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Larry Triggs, Louisiana inmate #66331, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as time-barred by the one-ye..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-30565
Summary Calendar
LARRY TRIGGS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
BURL CAIN, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 97-CV-2430-K
May 23, 2000
Before GARWOOD, HIGGINBOTHAM, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Larry Triggs, Louisiana inmate #66331, appeals the district
court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as time-barred
by the one-year statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. §
2244(d). Triggs contends that the district court erred in
determining that his state application for post-conviction relief
was not “properly filed” as that term is used in § 2244(d)(2).
This Court’s opinion in Smith v. Ward, ___ F.3d ___, 2000 WL
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5 the Court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under
the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
358294 at *2-3 (5th Cir. Apr. 7, 2000), indicates that Triggs’
state application for post-conviction relief was “properly filed”
for purposes of § 2244(d) and should have tolled the § 2244(d)
limitations period. Accordingly, the judgment dismissing Triggs’
§ 2254 application as time-barred is VACATED, and the case is
REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
VACATED and REMANDED.
2