Case Name: Danto PALOMINO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John MARSHALL, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-02
Citations: 368 F. App'x 809
Docket Number: No. 08-55065
Parties: Danto PALOMINO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John MARSHALL, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 368
Pages: 809–810

Head Matter:
Danto PALOMINO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John MARSHALL, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 08-55065.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
Filed March 2, 2010.
Danto Palomino, San Luis Obispo, CA, pro se.
Corey J. Robins, Esq., AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, Los An-geles, 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). Accordingly, Palomino's request for oral argument is denied.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Danto Palomino appeals 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.
Palomino contends he is entitled to statutory tolling for the time that elapsed between the denial of his habeas petition in the Los Angeles Superior Court and the filing of his habeas petition in the Califor nia Court of Appeal. This contention lacks merit. See Evans v. Chavis, 546 U.S. 189, 201, 126 S.Ct. 846, 163 L.Ed.2d 684 (2006); Chaffer v. Prosper, 592 F.3d 1046, 1047-48 (9th Cir.2010) (per curiam) (filing gaps of 101 and 115 days not subject to statutory tolling).
Palomino also contends he is entitled to equitable tolling because "prison workers did not let [him] write the court." This bare allegation fails to satisfy the standard required for such extraordinary relief. See Chaffer, 592 F.3d at 1048-49. To the extent that Palomino contends he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on this issue, this contention lacks merit. See Tapia v. Roe, 189 F.3d 1052, 1056 (9th Cir.1999).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.