Case ID: f-appx_468/html/0793-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Bruce Ellis JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. M. MARTEL, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 11-15673.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
    
    Filed Feb. 23, 2012.
    Bruce Ellis Johnson, pro se.
    Brian G. Smiley, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Bruce Ellis Johnson 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.

Johnson contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling because he was not properly advised about AEDPA and its deadlines, his attorney withheld his legal file, and he did not have knowledge of the denial of his state habeas petition. Equitable tolling is not warranted because Johnson has not shown that any of these circumstances caused the untimely filing of his federal habeas petition. See Ramirez v. Yates, 571 F.3d 993, 997 (9th Cir.2009).

We construe Johnson’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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.