Case ID: f-appx_632/html/0419-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Carl D. MITCHELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Calvin CHAPPELL, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 15-15721.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 20, 2016.
    
    Filed Jan. 28, 2016.
    Carl D. Mitchell, San Quentin, CA, pro se.
    Laura Wetzel Simpton, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, 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 Carl D. Mitchell appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo the district court’s denial of a habeas petition as untimely, see Ramirez v. Yates, 571 F.3d 993, 997 (9th Cir.2009), and we affirm.

In his only certified claim on appeal, Mitchell argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320, 130 S.Ct. 2788, 177 L.Ed.2d 592 (2010), reset the one-year statute of limitations period to file a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(C). Mitchell’s reliance on Magwood is misplaced; Magwood interpreted the phrase “second or successive” as used in section 2244(b), and it did not newly recognize a constitutional right that has been made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. See § 2244(d)(1)(C); Magwood, 561 U.S. at 331-36, 130 S.Ct. 2788.

We treat Mitchell’s briefing of additional arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So treated, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1 (e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999).

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