Ramirez v. Campbell , 384 F. App'x 654 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 18 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DANIEL RAMON RAMIREZ, No. 07-15798
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 06-cv-01257-FCD
v.
ROSANNE CAMPBELL, MEMORANDUM *
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Frank C. Damrell, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 25, 2010 **
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Daniel Ramon Ramirez appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as
untimely. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
*
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).
Ramirez contends the district court erred by dismissing his habeas petition
because he is entitled to tolling during the time that he diligently sought habeas
relief in state courts. This contention fails because the state court denied Ramirez’s
first habeas petition as untimely and his other state habeas petitions were filed after
the federal habeas statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d)(1) had already
expired. See White v. Martel, 601 F.3d 882, 883-84 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam);
see also Green v. White, 223 F.3d 1001, 1003 (9th Cir. 2000) (petitioner not
entitled to tolling for state petitions filed after federal time limitation has run).
To the extent Ramirez contends he is entitled to equitable tolling because he
is not English-proficient, this contention fails. See Mendoza v. Carey, 449 F.3d
1065, 1070 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner who demonstrates proficiency in English or
who has the assistance of a translator is barred from equitable relief).
AFFIRMED.
2 07-15798