Jimenez v. Director, Nevada Department of Corrections , 368 F. App'x 811 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 02 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FERNANDO R. JIMENEZ, No. 07-16916
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. CV-06-00500-RCJ
v.
MEMORANDUM *
DIRECTOR, NEVADA DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS; et al.,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 16, 2010 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Nevada state prisoner Fernando R. Jimenez appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as untimely. We
*
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).
AK/Research
have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Jimenez contends that the district court erred by dismissing his habeas
petition as untimely because he was entitled to statutory tolling following the
conclusion of the formal administrative review process in which he sought
additional sentencing credits. This argument lacks merit. See Redd v. McGrath,
343 F.3d 1077, 1082 (9th Cir. 2003).
Alternatively, Jimenez contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling
because he was engaged in settlement efforts with the former director of the
Nevada Department of Corrections and the Nevada Attorney General’s office. The
district court did not err in determining that Jimenez failed to demonstrate that
extraordinary circumstances made it impossible for him to file a timely habeas
petition. See Shannon v. Newland, 410 F.3d 1083, 1089-90 (9th Cir. 2005).
To the extent that Jimenez claims that the district court should have
conducted an evidentiary hearing regarding his claims, the record reflects that the
district court did not err in this regard. See Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465,
474-75 (2007).
All pending motions are denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
AK/Research 2 07-16916