Case Name: Robert BATTISTE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Anthony HEDGPETH, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-01-19
Citations: 466 F. App'x 632
Docket Number: No. 11-15686
Parties: Robert BATTISTE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Anthony HEDGPETH, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 466
Pages: 632–633

Head Matter:
Robert BATTISTE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Anthony HEDGPETH, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 11-15686.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 17, 2012.
Filed Jan. 19, 2012.
Robert Battiste, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
Jeremy Friedlander, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Robert Battiste appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2258, and we affirm.
Battiste contends that the district court erred by dismissing his petition as untimely because his attorney's failure to file a federal habeas petition entitles him to equitable tolling. Battiste is not entitled to equitable tolling because he has not shown that his attorney's conduct was so egregious as to constitute an "extraordinary circumstance" that prevented him from filing a timely petition. See Holland v. Florida,—U.S.—,—-—, 130 S.Ct. 2549, 2563-64,177 L.Ed.2d 130 (2010). He also has not shown that he was diligent in pursuing his rights during the relevant time periods. See Bryant v. Ariz. Att'y Gen., 499 F.3d 1056, 1061 (9th Cir.2007). Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of Battiste's petition.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.