Case ID: f-appx_224/html/0694-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mark JUDGE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Derral G. ADAMS, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 05-16092.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Feb. 15, 2007.
    Filed March 16, 2007.
    Mark Judge, Coalinga, CA, pro se.
    Barry L. Morris, Esq., Hayward, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Peggy S. Ruffra, Esq., Jeffrey M. Laurence, Esq., Ross C. Moody, Esq., AGCAOffice of the California Attorney General, Oakland, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

There is no dispute that Judge’s petition for habeas corpus was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Because Judge has not shown that ‘“extraordinary circumstances beyond [his] control ma[d]e it impossible to file a petition on time,’ ” Spitsyn v. Moore, 345 F.3d 796, 799 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Brambles v. Duncan, 330 F.3d 1197, 1202 (9th Cir.2003)), he is not entitled to equitable tolling.

Ordinary attorney negligence is not enough to toll the limitations period, “ ‘lest the exceptions swallow the rule.’” Id. (quoting Miranda v. Castro, 292 F.3d 1063,1066 (9th Cir.2002)).

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