Adam Robinson v. John Marshall , 405 F. App'x 241 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             DEC 13 2010
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    ADAM ROBERT ROBINSON,                            No. 08-55950
    Petitioner - Appellant,           D.C. No. 2:07-cv-01606-GHK-
    JWJ
    v.
    JOHN C. MARSHALL,                                MEMORANDUM *
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    George H. King, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted December 6, 2010 **
    Before:        GOODWIN, RYMER, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    California state prisoner Adam Robert Robinson appeals from the dismissal
    of 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).
    Robinson contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling based on his
    inability to access the law library during extended prison lockdowns. This
    contention fails because Robinson did not demonstrate how limited access to the
    library was the cause of his failure to timely file his petition. See Ramirez v. Yates,
    
    571 F.3d 993
    , 998 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that limitations on access to the law
    library “were neither extraordinary nor made it impossible for him to file his
    petition in a timely manner”) (internal citations omitted).
    Robinson also contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling based on his
    pro se status and his belief that his appointed counsel was filing appropriate
    appeals. These contentions fail because pro se status is not, by itself, an
    extraordinary circumstance warranting equitable tolling, and because Robinson
    failed to present sufficient evidence that he was pursuing his rights diligently. See
    Rasberry v. Garcia, 
    448 F.3d 1150
    , 1154 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Ramirez, 
    571 F.3d at 997-98
     (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that the lack of knowledge of a state court
    decision provides grounds for equitable tolling only where prisoner otherwise
    evidenced diligence).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                     08-55950
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-55950

Citation Numbers: 405 F. App'x 241

Judges: Goodwin, Rymer, Graber

Filed Date: 12/13/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024