Case ID: f-appx_175/html/0939-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

David John CHRISTENSEN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Ivan C. BARTOS, Respondent—Appellee.
    No. 05-15805.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 5, 2006.
    
    Decided April 14, 2006.
    David John Christensen, Yuma, AZ, pro se.
    James P. Beene, Esq., Office of the Arizona Attorney General, Phoenix, AZ, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: HAWKINS, MCKEOWN and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Arizona state prisoner David John Christensen appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as time-barred. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2258. We review de novo, Nardi v. Stewart, 354 F.3d 1134, 1140 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.

Christensen’s Motion to Attach Exhibits to Petitioner’s Optional Reply to Respondent’s Answering Brief is granted.

Christensen contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling because counsel failed to notify him that his state petition for post-conviction relief had been denied by the Arizona Supreme Court. Counsel’s alleged failure does not qualify as an extraordinary circumstance warranting equitable tolling. See Miranda v. Castro, 292 F.3d 1063, 1067-68 (9th Cir.2002); Frye v. Hickman, 273 F.3d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir. 2001).

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.