The following excerpt is from Steele v. Katavich, No. 2:15-cv-1836 TLN KJN P (E.D. Cal. 2016):
Here, petitioner appears to concede that he failed to exhaust his state court remedies, but he did not address the statute of limitations issue. Specifically, respondent argues that allowing petitioner to exhaust any unexhausted claim would be futile because the statute of limitations has run with regard to such unexhausted claims, citing see Jiminez v. Rice, 276 F.3d 478, 482 (9th Cir. 2001) (because petitioner filed his state habeas petition after the AEDPA statute of
Page 2
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.