Case Name: John GREEN, Petitioner-Appellant v. Anthony HEDGPETH, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-05-22
Citations: 473 F. App'x 650
Docket Number: No. 11-17113
Parties: John GREEN, Petitioner—Appellant v. Anthony HEDGPETH, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 473
Pages: 650–651

Head Matter:
John GREEN, Petitioner—Appellant v. Anthony HEDGPETH, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 11-17113.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 15, 2012.
Filed May 22, 2012.
John Green, Soledad, CA, pro se.
Sharon Birenbaum, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: CANBY, GRABER, 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 John Green 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. § 2253, and we affirm.
Green contends he is entitled to equitable tolling because he did not have access to his legal files. Green has not demonstrated that an extraordinary circumstance beyond his control prevented him from timely filing his habeas petition, or that he has been pursuing his rights diligently. See Holland v. Florida, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2549, 2562, 177 L.Ed.2d 130 (2010); Chaffer v. Prosper, 592 F.3d 1046, 1048 (9th Cir.2010) (per curiam) (petitioner bears the "heavy burden" of showing that he diligently pursued his rights and that an extraordinary circumstance stood in his way).
We construe Green's additional arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098,1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.