Bruce Wanzo, Jr. v. Christian Pfeiffer ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •                                                                           FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             APR 3 2023
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    BRUCE WANZO, Jr.,                                No.   20-56072
    Petitioner-Appellant,              D.C. No.
    2:19-cv-05764-JLS-SP
    v.
    CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER, Warden,                      MEMORANDUM*
    Respondent-Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted March 30, 2023**
    San Francisco, California
    Before: McKEOWN, GOULD, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    Bruce Wanzo, Jr. appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his
    petition for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that it was untimely pursuant to
    the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C.
    *
    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).
    § 2244(d)(1). We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. §§ 1291
     and 2253, and we
    affirm.
    Wanzo does not contest the district court’s dismissal of his claims
    challenging his 1990 conviction as untimely and has therefore forfeited any
    objection to the dismissal of those claims. See Miller v. Fairchild Indus., Inc., 
    797 F.2d 727
    , 738 (9th Cir. 1986).
    Wanzo failed to raise any constitutional challenge to the Los Angeles
    County Superior Court’s 2019 denial of his request for resentencing under former
    section 1170.95 of the California Penal Code1 in his federal habeas petition. Nor
    did he raise any such challenge in response to a show cause order of the magistrate
    judge, in his objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, or in
    his motion for a Certificate of Appealability (COA). Therefore, Wanzo has
    forfeited any such challenge, and we affirm on that basis. See White v. Klitzkie,
    
    281 F.3d 920
    , 921–22 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny as moot Wanzo’s motion for
    judicial notice of his state court records, Dkt 25.
    AFFIRMED.
    1
    The statute was renumbered as section 1172.6 of the California Penal
    Code.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-56072

Filed Date: 4/3/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/3/2023