Case ID: f-appx_471/html/0692-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

George Noah BRAGGS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James A. WALKER, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 11-16293.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 6, 2012.
    
    Filed March 12, 2012.
    George Noah Braggs, Represa, CA, pro se.
    Allen R. Crown, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for RespondentAppellee.
    
      Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, 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 George Noah Braggs 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.

Braggs contends that the district court erroneously concluded Braggs was not entitled to equitable tolling. The district court properly rejected Braggs’s equitable tolling arguments because Braggs failed to show that his mental impairment was an “extraordinary circumstance” beyond his control that made it impossible to file a timely federal habeas petition. See Bills v. Clark, 628 F.3d 1092, 1099-1100 (9th Cir.2010).

Braggs also contends that the district court erred in denying him an evidentiary hearing. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Braggs’s request because Braggs’s allegations that he had a severe mental impairment during the filing period were not supported by the record. See West v. Ryan, 608 F.3d 477, 484-85 (9th Cir.2010).

We construe Braggs’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); 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.