Case ID: f-appx_171/html/0063-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Henry Roy LOMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. TWIN FALLS COUNTY OF, FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 04-35666.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2006.
    
    Decided March 14, 2006.
    Henry Roy Loman, Jerome, ID, pro se.
    Teresa A. Hampton, Esq., Hampton & Elliott, Boise, ID, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Ralph Blount, Esq., Office of Attorney General, L. Lamont Anderson, Esq., Office of the Idaho Attorney General, Boise, ID, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: CANBY, BEEZER, and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Henry Roy Loman appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Loman contends that his state post-conviction petition was “properly filed” for the purpose of tolling the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) statute of limitations. Because Loman’s state post-conviction petition was untimely, see Idaho Code § 19-4902(a), it was not “properly filed” and therefore, did not toll the statute of limitations. See Pace v. DiGuglielmo, — U.S. -, -, 125 S.Ct. 1807, 1812, 161 L.Ed.2d 669 (2005) (“When a postconviction petition is untimely under state law, that [is] the end of the matter for purposes of [28 U.S.C.] § 2244(d)(2).”) (internal quotations omitted).

We decline to address Loman’s conclusory equitable tolling contention. See James v. Borg, 24 F.3d 20, 26 (9th Cir.1994).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.