N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT ER NEST SUNR

HODES, Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt,
v. QUENTIN B YR

N E, W arde n, R e sponde nt-Appe lle e . No. 16-15062 D.C . No. 2:14-c v-01368-GM

N-VC F
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Gloria M
. Nava rro, C hie f Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd submitte d

June 13, 2017 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER

and N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s, a nd B ATTAGLIA, ** Distric t Judge
. Erne st Sunrhode s a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s dismi ssa l of his 28 U.S.C
. § 2254 fe de ra l ha

b e a s pe tition, c ha lle nging his thre e Ne v a d a sta t e c ourt
c onvic tions. W e a ffirm
. 

# F IL ED JUL 05 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble Anthony

J. B atta glia , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de s igna tion.The pa rtie s do not dispute

tha t Sunrhode s’ s pe tition wa s file d a fte r the one y e ar statute of lim ita

tions ha d e xpire d. As to e q uita ble tolling, Sunrhode s wa ive d this a rgum e nt, be c a

u s e he fa ile d to a sse rt it until his m otion to a m e nd the judgm e nt. Ge ne ra lly , a

n a rgum e nt is c onside re d wa ive d if it is not tim e ly ra ise d at the distric t c o urt le ve l
. Taniguc hi v . Sc hultz , 303 F.3d 950, 958–59 (9th C ir. 2002). The re are thre e na

rrow e xc e ptions to this ge ne ra l rule , se e id. at 959, noneof whic h
a pply he re . First, the pa

rtie s a gre e tha

t Sunrhode s’ s e quita

ble tolling a

rgum e nt doe s not pre se nt a

pure que stion of la

w. Se c o nd, the la

w on e quita

ble tolling ha s not c ha nge d while this a

ppe a l wa s pe nding. Third, e x c e ptiona l c irc um sta nc e s did not pre ve nt Sunrhode s from ra ising this a

rgum e nt be fore the distric t c o urt. “ [T] he
m e re fa c t tha

t [Sunrhode s] wa s pro se ,” and did not ha ve knowle dge of e quita

ble tolling, a re not “ e xc e ptiona l c irc um sta nc e [s] tha t e xp la in[] his fa ilure to ra ise the issue in the distric t c ourt.” Robinson v

. K rame r , 588 F.3d 1212, 1217 (9th C ir. 2009). The R e sponde nts’ de l ay , in a sse rting tha t Sunrhode s’ s pe tition wa s untim e l y , is a lso not a

n e xc e ptiona l c irc um sta

nc e . The R e sponde nts did not wa ive this tim e line ss a

rgum e nt, be c a

use the y ha d not y e t file d a re sponsiveple a ding. Se e Randle v . C raw ford, 604 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th C ir. 2010). Sunrhode s offe rs no

2othe r re a son why the de la y pre ve nte d him from

a sse rting his e quita

ble tolling
argum e nt. 1 AFFIRM E D.

1 Sunrhode s ’ s M otion to Expa n d the R e c ord on Appe a l is DENIED. 3Sunrhode

s v . By rne , No. 16-15062, SC H R OEDER , C irc uit Judge , c onc urring: I c onc ur in the re sult, but write se pa rat e ly be c a u se I do not a g re e with m y
c olle a gue s tha

t the issue of e quita

ble tolling wa s wa ive d . Sunrhode s wa s tre ate d ba dly by his a ttorne y s , who wa ste d m

u c h tim e and de la

y e d notify i ng him

of the sta te c o urts’ de nia l of re lie f. Ne ve rthe le ss, the re wa s tim e re m a ining in which the pe tition c ould ha

ve be e n file d. The distric t c ourt c onside re d e quita ble tolling both in gra

nting them otion to dism

iss a nd de ny ing theR

ule 59 m otion. Sunrhode s ha s a ble la wy e rs on a

ppe a l. W hile I do not a gre e tha

t we should re ga

rd the issue a s
wa ive d, I do a gre e with thedistric t c ourt tha t Sunrhode s did not make an a de quate showing of e xtra ordina

ry c irc um sta

nc e s justifyi ng e q

u ita ble tolling. Se e Holland
v . Florida , 560 U.S. 631, 649 (2010). 

# F IL ED JUL 05 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS