Case Name: Frank Irvin MOPPINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Thomas CAREY, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-05-21
Citations: 325 F. App'x 599
Docket Number: No. 08-15220
Parties: Frank Irvin MOPPINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Thomas CAREY, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 325
Pages: 599–600

Head Matter:
Frank Irvin MOPPINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Thomas CAREY, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 08-15220.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 12, 2009.
Filed May 21, 2009.
Frank Irvin Moppins, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
Kasey E. Jones, AGCA-Offiee of the California Attorney' General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: PREGERSON, CANBY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Frank Irvin Moppins appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Moppins contends that he is entitled to statutory tolling during the pendency of a state habeas petition filed in superior court; and to equitable tolling based upon the misconduct of his attorney. Moppins has failed to show that the state habeas petition referred to provides a proper basis for statutory tolling, or that extraordinary circumstances beyond his control prevented him from timely filing. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2); Welch v. Carey, 350 F.3d 1079, 1082 (9th Cir.2003); Spitsyn v. Moore, 345 F.3d 796, 799 (9th Cir.2003).
We construe the uncertified issues raised in Moppins's opening brief as a motion to expand the certificate of appeal-ability, and we deny the motion. 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.