Enver Karafili v. Ronald Davis ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        MAR 9 2020
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    ENVER KARAFILI,                                 No. 19-55704
    Petitioner-Appellant,           D.C. No. 3:18-cv-02418-LAB-NLS
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    RONALD DAVIS, Warden,
    Respondent-Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of California
    Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted March 3, 2020**
    Before:      MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
    California state prisoner Enver Karafili appeals pro se from the district
    court’s order dismissing his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     petition as successive. We have
    jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    . We review de novo, see Wentzell v. Neven,
    
    674 F.3d 1124
    , 1126 (9th Cir. 2012), and we affirm.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    The district court granted a certificate of appealability on whether Karafili’s
    instant section 2254 petition should have been dismissed as successive under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2244
    (b)(3)(A). Karafili fails to make any argument that his petition is not
    successive in his opening brief, and therefore has waived this issue. See Koerner v.
    Grigas, 
    328 F.3d 1039
    , 1048 (9th Cir. 2003) (“In general, [w]e will not ordinarily
    consider matters on appeal that are not specifically and distinctly argued in
    appellant’s opening brief” (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks
    omitted)). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Karafili’s
    petition as successive.
    On appeal, Karafili solely raises arguments related to the merits of his
    petition, which were not included in the certificate of appealability. We treat these
    arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability, and deny the
    motion. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 
    195 F.3d 1098
    , 1104-05 (9th
    Cir. 1999).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                      19-55704
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-55704

Filed Date: 3/9/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 3/9/2020