Charles Norman, Jr. v. John Dovey , 486 F. App'x 651 ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 17 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHARLES GLENN NORMAN, Jr., No. 12-15615
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:06-cv-02235-MCE
v.
MEMORANDUM *
JOHN DOVEY; ATTORNEY GENERAL
FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 9, 2012 **
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Charles Glenn Norman, Jr., 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).
Norman does not dispute on appeal the district court’s determination that his
petition was untimely. Even if this issue were not waived by Norman’s failure to
brief it, see Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999), the record
supports the district court’s conclusion. Norman’s petition was filed beyond
AEDPA’s limitations period, and he is not entitled to either equitable or statutory
tolling. See Holland v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2549, 2562 (2010) (equitable tolling
available where the petitioner shows “(1) that he has been pursuing his rights
diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way and
prevented timely filing”) (internal quotations omitted); Ferguson v. Palmateer, 321
F.3d 820, 823 (9th Cir. 2003) (“section 2244(d) does not permit the reinitiation of
the limitations period that has ended before the state petition was filed”).
We construe Norman’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the
certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-
1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
2 12-15615