Case ID: f-appx_389/html/0645-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Phallon Leon HARRIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Anthony HEDGPETH, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 08-17745.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 29, 2010.
    
    Filed July 23, 2010.
    Phallon Leon Harris, Delano, CA, pro se.
    Brian G. Smiley, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, David Andrew Eldridge, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appel-lee.
    Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, 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 Phallon Leon Harris 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.

Harris contends that he is entitled to statutory or equitable tolling because a series of lockdowns impeded his access to the prison law library. This contention fails because Harris has not demonstrated that an impediment or extraordinary circumstance prevented him from timely filing his habeas petition, or that he diligently pursued his rights. See Ramirez v. Yates, 571 F.3d 993, 998 (9th Cir.2009); see also Bryant v. Schriro, 499 F.3d 1056, 1060 (9th Cir.2007). Harris’ contention that he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the issue of tolling also fails. See Tapia v. Roe, 189 F.3d 1052, 1058 (9th Cir.1999).

We construe Harris’ briefing of uncerti-fied issues as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-l(e); see also 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.