Case ID: f-appx_415/html/0821-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Noel Phillipe SCOTT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Tom L. CAREY, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 09-15349.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
    
    Filed Feb. 23, 2011.
    
      Noel Phillipe Scott, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
    Andrew R. Woodrow, AGCA-Office of The California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, 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 Noel Phillipe Scott 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.

Scott contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling due to withholding of legal papers, prison lockdowns, and limited library access. Equitable tolling is not warranted because he has not shown that any of the above grounds caused the untimely filing of his federal habeas petition. See Ramirez v. Yates, 571 F.3d 993, 998 (9th Cir.2009); see also Allen v. Lewis, 255 F.3d 798, 800 (9th Cir.2001) (extraordinary circumstances encountered early on it will normally make it more difficult to demonstrate causation).

We construe appellant’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); 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.