T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T J EM A I N H U N TER, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. GE OR GE GA L AZ A, R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 07- 17202 D . C . N o . C V - 0 5 - 0 1 3 0 0 - O WW ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia O l i ve rW . W a nge r , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry8, 2010 ** S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: O ’ S C A N N L A IN , T R O T T an dP A E Z , C i rcu i tJu d g es. J e m a in H u n te rap p e a ls th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s o r d e rd is m is s in g a s u n tim e lyh is h ab e a s p e titio n f

ile d p u r s u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 . H u n te ra r g u e s h e is e n title dto 

# FI LED FEB 19 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

equi t abl e t ol l i ng of the st atut e of l i m i t at i on . W e r evi ew de no vo , S pi t sy n v . M oo re , 3 4 5 F. 3 d 7 9 6 , 7 9 9 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 3 ) , a n dw e a f f i rm. T he A nt i t errori sm and E ff ec t i ve D ea th P enal ty A ctof 19 96 (“ A E D P A ”) c o n ta in s ao n e - y e a rs ta tu te o f lim ita tio n f

o rh ab e a s p e titio n s . 2 8 U .S .C . § 2244( d) ( 1) . T he s t a tut e be ga n t o run on S e pt e m be r21, 2004, 90 da y s a f t e rthe C a l i f orni aS upr e m e C ourtde ni e d H unt e r ’ s pe t i t i on f orr e vi e w , w he n the t i m e f or p etit io n in g fo r a w rit o f c er ti o ra ri ex p ired . 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 (d )( 1 )( A ). H u n ter’s fed eral p et i t i o n w as th u s d u e S ep t em b er 2 1 , 2 0 0 5 . H e fi l ed th e p et i t i o n 1 6 d ays l a t e , on O c t obe r7, 2005. E q u itab le to llin g “is u n a v a ilab le in m o s t c a s e s ,” a n d“th e th r e s h o ld ne c e s s a ryt o tr i gge re qui t abl e t ol l i ng unde rA E D P A i s ve ryhi gh, l e s tthe exce pt i on s s w al l ow the rul e. ” M i rand a v. C as tro, 29 2 F . 3d 10 63 , 10 66 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 2 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ) . A h ab e a s p e titio n e ris e n title dto e q u itab le t ol l i ng onl yi f

he s how s “ ‘ ( 1) tha the ha s be e n pur s ui ng hi s r i ght s di l i ge nt l y , a nd ( 2 ) th a t s o m e e x tr a o r d in a ryc ir c u m s ta n c e s to o din h is w a y ’ a n dp r e v e n te dtim e ly f i l i ng. ” L a w r e nc e v. F l or i da , 549 U . S . 327, 336 ( 2007) ( quot i ng P a c e v. D i G ug l i el m o, 54 4 U . S . 40 8, 41 8 (20 05 )) . A l tho ug h an att orney’ s behavi or can es t abl i sh the extra ordi naryci rc um st ance s r equi re d for equi t abl e t ol l i ng , m er e n e g lig e n c e o rp r o f

e s s io n a l m a lp r a c tic e is in s u f f ic ie n t. F ry e v. H i c km a n, 273 F . 3dW e not e tha tthe U ni t e d S t a t e s S upr e m e C ourtha s gr a nt e d ape t i t i on f or 1 c e rt i or a r i i n H ol l a nd v. F l or i da , 539 F . 3d 1334 ( 11th C i r . 2008) , c e rt . gr a nt e d, 130 S . C t . 398 ( 2009) . I n H ol l a nd, the pe t i t i one r ’ s a tt orne yf a i l e d t o not i f

yhi s c l i e ntof a s t at e c ou rtdi sposi t i on i n h i s c as e. A ss um i ng thatthe att orney’ s c on du ctw as “ gr os s l yne gl i ge nt , ” the E l e ve nth C i r c ui tde c l i ne d t o appl ye qui t abl e t ol l i ng because the pet i t i on erhad m ade no al l egat i on of “ bad fai th, di shon es ty, di vi ded lo y a lty , m e n ta l im p a irm e n t o rs o f o rth o n th e la w y e r ’s p a rt.” I d . a t 1 3 3 9 . 3 1144, 1146 ( 9th C i r . 2001) . R a the r , the a tt orne ym us tha ve c om m i tt e d “ e gr e gi ous m i sc on du ct . ” S hann on v. N ew l and, 41 0 F . 3d 10 83 , 10 90 (9th C i r. 20 05 ). H unt e r ’ s c ouns e l on di r e c tappe a l f a i l e d t o i nf

orm H unt e rw he n the C al i forni a S up re m e C ou rtdeni ed hi s pet i t i on for r evi ew . H e a l so m ov ed hi s off i ce w ith o u t n o tif

y in g H u n te r , m a k in g it d if f ic u lt f o rH u n te rto c o n ta c t h im . T h is behavi or, al tho ug h n egl i gent , do es no tri se t o the l evel of egre gi ou s m i sc on du ct r e qui r e d unde rthi s c ourt ’ s pr e c e de nt . C f . S pi t s y n, 345 F . 3d a t801 ( a l l ow i ng 1 equi t abl e t ol l i ng w here pet i t i on er ’ s c ou nsel w as hi re d al m osta y ear i n adv ance , f a i l e d t o do a ny thi ng t o pr e pa r e the pe t i t i on ort o r e s pond t o num e r ous l e tt e r s a nd phone c a l l s , a nd w i thhe l d pe t i t i one r ’ s f i l e f orove rtw o m onths a f

t e rthe l i m i t a t i ons peri od expi re d). T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y di sm i ss ed H un t er ’ s habea s pet i t i on as u n t i m el y. A F F I R M E D .