Case Name: Vincent Wayne PADGETT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jean HILL, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-21
Citations: 384 F. App'x 671
Docket Number: No. 08-35453
Parties: Vincent Wayne PADGETT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jean HILL, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 384
Pages: 671–672

Head Matter:
Vincent Wayne PADGETT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jean HILL, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 08-35453.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 8, 2010.
Filed June 21, 2010.
Anthony Bornstein, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Portland, OR, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Susan R. Gerber, Esquire, Office of the Oregon Attorney General, Jeff Payne, Oregon Department of Justice, Salem, OR, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Vincent Wayne Padgett appeals the district court's denial of his petition for habe- as corpus relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We affirm.
Padgett asserts that the district court erred when it decided that his failure to timely file his appeal from denial of post conviction relief in the Oregon Court of Appeals constituted a procedural default which barred federal habeas corpus relief. We disagree. In fact, due to an error on Padgett's part, his Notice of Appeal was sent to the wrong court and, as a result, was filed with the Oregon Court of Appeals more than thirty days after entry of judgment in the Oregon Circuit Court. That violated the appeal time limit set by Oregon; that limit is applied "without exception " and is both independent and adequate; it is " 'well established and consistently applied.' " Nor can it be said that this is one of those rare cases where application of the Oregon law was exorbitant and, therefore, inadequate as applied. See Lee v. Kemna, 534 U.S. 362, 376, 122 S.Ct. 877, 885, 151 L.Ed.2d 820 (2002). It does not present a situation where application of the law was peculiar and unexpected, or one over which Padgett had no control or responsibility. See id. at 387, 122 S.Ct. at 891. Padgett simply did not file in the proper court at the right time. Finally, Padgett has not spelled out cause and prejudice or a miscarriage of justice. See Powell v. Lambert, 357 F.3d 871, 874 (9th Cir.2004); see also McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 494-95, 111 S.Ct. 1454, 1470, 113 L.Ed.2d 517 (1991).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
. Or.Rev.Stat. § 138.650 (2005).
. Miller v. Baldwin, 176 Or.App. 500, 32 P.3d 234, 236 (2001); see also Felkel v. Thompson, 157 Or.App. 218, 970 P.2d 657, 659 (1998).
. Townsend v. Knowles, 562 F.3d 1200, 1206 (9th Cir.2009).
.Id. at 1207.