Case Name: Noel Phillipe SCOTT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D.K. SISTO, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-08
Citations: 370 F. App'x 787
Docket Number: No. 07-16583
Parties: Noel Phillipe SCOTT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D.K. SISTO, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 370
Pages: 787–788

Head Matter:
Noel Phillipe SCOTT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D.K. SISTO, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 07-16583.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
Filed March 8, 2010.
Noel Phillips Scott, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
Anya Marie Binsacca, Esquire, AGCA— Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, Jessica Nicole Blonien, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent Appellee.
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, 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 Noel Phillipe Scott appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Scott contends that the district court erred by denying him statutory tolling. This contention fails because the California superior court denied Scott's petition as untimely, and therefore his state petition was not "properly filed," as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). See Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 417, 125 S.Ct. 1807, 161 L.Ed.2d 669 (2005); see also Townsend v. Knowles, 562 F.3d 1200, 1205 (9th Cir.2009).
Scott further contends that he was entitled to equitable tolling because his delays in filing were caused by his lack of access during various time periods to his legal materials, and the law library. The district court did not err by determining that he was not entitled to equitable tolling because he failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that extraordinary circumstances rather than his own lack of diligence caused the untimeliness of his federal habeas petition. See Waldron-Ramsey v. Pacholke, 556 F.3d 1008, 1013-14 (9th Cir.2009).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.