Opinion

Brown v. Angelone

  • 28 F. App'x 309
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Filed
Feb 8, 2002
Status
Unpublished
On the bench
Williams, Traxler, Gregory
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 28.2%

The opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

BENJAMIN BROWN, 

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

 No. 01-7709

RONALD ANGELONE, Director of

Corrections,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.

Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge.

(CA-01-1385-AM)

Submitted: January 28, 2002

Decided: February 8, 2002

Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL

Benjamin Brown, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

2 BROWN v. ANGELONE

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Benjamin Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 2001). For the reasons set forth below, we vacate and remand

for further proceedings.

The district court, acting sua sponte, determined from the face of

Brown’s petition that his claims were barred by the one-year limita-

tions period set forth in 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(d) (West Supp. 2001) and

dismissed the action without giving Brown notice or an opportunity

to respond. Our recent decision in Hill v. Braxton, No. 00-7408, ___

F.3d ___, 2002 WL 45893 (4th Cir. Jan. 14, 2002), now requires the

district court to provide such a warning "unless it is indisputably clear

from the materials presented to the district court that the petition is

untimely and cannot be salvaged by equitable tolling principles or any

of the circumstances enumerated in § 2244(d)(1)." Id. at *5.

Because it is not "indisputably clear" that Brown cannot salvage his

petition, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, grant a certifi-

cate of appealability, vacate the district court’s order, and remand to

the district court to provide Brown with the notice and opportunity to

respond to which he is now entitled pursuant to Hill. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade-

quately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.