Case ID: f-appx_384/html/0654-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Daniel Ramon RAMIREZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Rosanne CAMPBELL, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 07-15798.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 18, 2010.
    Daniel Ramon Ramirez, lone, CA, pro se.
    Brian Means, David Andrew Eldridge, Esq., AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    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 Daniel Ramon Ramirez 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.

Ramirez contends the district court erred by dismissing his habeas petition because he is entitled to tolling during the time that he diligently sought habeas relief in state courts. This contention fails because the state court denied Ramirez’s first habeas petition as untimely and his other state habeas petitions were filed after the federal habeas statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d)(1) had already expired. See White v. Martel, 601 F.3d 882, 883-84 (9th Cir.2010) (per cu-riam); see also Green v. White, 223 F.3d 1001, 1003 (9th Cir.2000) (petitioner not entitled to tolling for state petitions filed after federal time limitation has run).

To the extent Ramirez contends he is entitled to equitable tolling because he is not English-proficient, this contention fails. See Mendoza v. Carey, 449 F.3d 1065, 1070 (9th Cir.2006) (petitioner who demonstrates proficiency in English or who has the assistance of a translator is barred from equitable relief).

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