Case Name: Omar LOPEZ-CASTILLO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Pat GLEBE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-16
Citations: 422 F. App'x 567
Docket Number: No. 10-35441
Parties: Omar LOPEZ-CASTILLO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Pat GLEBE, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 422
Pages: 567–568

Head Matter:
Omar LOPEZ-CASTILLO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Pat GLEBE, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 10-35441.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted March 10, 2011.
Filed March 16, 2011.
Scott J. Engelhard, Law Office of Scott J. Engelhard, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Gregory Joseph Rosen, Assistant Attorney General, AGWA-Office of the Washington Attorney General, Olympia, WA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: FISHER, GOULD, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Omar Lopez-Castillo appeals the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus as untimely. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
We reject Lopez-Castillo's argument that the burden was on Respondent to show that Lopez-Castillo was not entitled to equitable tolling. Rather, Lopez-Castillo had the burden to establish two elements: (1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way. Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2549, 2562, 177 L.Ed.2d 130 (2010); Mendoza v. Carey, 449 F.3d 1065, 1068 (9th Cir.2006).
It was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to deny an evidentiary hearing on the issue of Lopez-Castillo's entitlement to equitable tolling, and the district court properly dismissed the petition as untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Lopez-Castillo did not adequately allege that he acted with the requisite diligence in pursuing his rights, nor did he offer to bring forward sufficient evidence of diligence in response to the magistrate judge's specific inquiry about what evidence he would present if granted a hearing. See Bills v. Clark, 628 F.3d 1092, 1100-01 (9th Cir.2010); Mendoza, 449 F.3d at 1069-71 & n. 6.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.