Case ID: f-appx_384/html/0650-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Robert E. GALLEGOS, Sr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. D.K. SISTO, Warden and Alison Elle Aleman, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 08-17255.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 18, 2010.
    Stephanie Marie Adraktas, Law Office of Stephanie Adraktas, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Brian R. Means, Deputy Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, Sacramento, CA, for Respondents-Appel-lees.
    Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, 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 Robert E. Gallegos, Sr. appeals 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.

Gallegos contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling because his mental and physical impairments prevented him from timely filing his habeas petition. This contention fails because Gallegos has not demonstrated that an extraordinary circumstance beyond his control caused the untimeliness. See Gaston v. Palmer, 417 F.3d 1030, 1034-35 (9th Cir.2005), amended on other grounds by, 447 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir.2006).

Gallegos’s contention that he is also entitled to equitable tolling because he relied on a mistaken interpretation of then-existing precedent also fails. See Chaffer v. Prosper, 592 F.3d 1046, 1049 (9th Cir.2010) (per curiam).

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