Case ID: f-appx_584/html/0850-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Roxanne Corinne PERDIGONE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ron DAVIS, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 12-17650.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 23, 2014.
    
    Filed Sept. 30, 2014.
    Charles Marchand Bonneau, II, Esquire, Sacramento, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Brian G. Smiley, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panfel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Roxanne Corinne Perdigone appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a federal habeas petition on statute of limitations grounds, see Mendoza v. Carey, 449 F.3d 1065, 1068 (9th Cir.2006), and we affirm.

Perdigone contends that she is entitled to equitable tolling because of the unavailability of two witnesses and because her incarceration made it difficult for her to complete her investigation until February 9, 2010. Perdigone has not shown that she diligently pm-sued her rights, or that an extraordinary circumstance beyond her control prevented her from timely filing her habeas petition. See Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 649, 130 S.Ct. 2549, 177 L.Ed.2d 130 (2010); Chaffer v. Prosper, 592 F.3d 1046, 1048 (9th Cir.2010) (per curiam) (petitioner bears the “heavy burden” of showing that she diligently pursued her rights and that an extraordinary circumstance stood in her way).

We- construe Perdigone’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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.