Case ID: f-appx_474/html/0650-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James Arthur MULGREW, Petitioner—Appellant, v. M. McDONALD, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
    No. 09-17737.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 17, 2012.
    
    Filed July 19, 2012.
    Barbara Michel, I, Esquire, Barbara Michel, Attorney at Law, Berkeley, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    
      Brian G. Smiley, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, 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 James Arthur Mulgrew appeals 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, and we affirm.

Mulgrew contends that the district court erred in dismissing his petition as untimely. We need not decide whether Mulgrew was entitled to any form of tolling to render his petition timely because the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Bailey v. Hill, 599 F.3d 976, 982 (9th Cir.2010) (“ § 2254(a) does not confer jurisdiction over a state prisoner’s in-custody challenge to a restitution order imposed as part of a criminal sentence”); Washington v. Lampert, 422 F.3d 864, 869 (9th Cir.2005) (reviewing court may affirm on any ground supported by the record).

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