Case ID: f-appx_398/html/0193-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Saahdi COLEMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Derral G. ADAMS, Warden and Attorney General of the State of California, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 09-15390.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Sept. 30, 2010.
    Saahdi Coleman, Represa, CA, pro se.
    Mark Anthony Johnson, Deputy Attorney General, Brian G. Smiley, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.
    Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. 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 Saahdi Coleman 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. § 2258. We review de novo, Chaffer v. Prosper, 592 F.3d 1046, 1048 (9th Cir.2010) (per curiam), and we affirm.

Coleman contends the district court erred by determining that he was not entitled to statutory or equitable tolling for the period between the California Court of Appeal’s denial of his habeas petition and the filing of his habeas petition with the California Supreme Court. The district court did not err because Coleman’s 179-day delay in filing was unreasonable, see Chaffer, 592 F.3d at 1048, and he failed to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances that made it impossible for him to file on time, see id. at 1048-49.

We construe Coleman’s briefing of uncertified issues 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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.