Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Galen FISHER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-05-17
Citations: 518 F. App'x 588
Docket Number: No. 11-17065
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Galen FISHER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: W. FLETCHER, GOULD, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 518
Pages: 588–588

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Galen FISHER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-17065.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 7, 2013.
Filed May 17, 2013.
Gregory A. Brower, Robert Lawrence Ellman, Esquire, Peter Stuart Levitt, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Galen Fisher, Waymart, PA, pro se.
Alina Maria Shell, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: W. FLETCHER, GOULD, and CHRISTEN, 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
Galen Fisher appeals the district court's denial of his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 as untimely. Fisher argues that his lawyer's refusal to file an appeal justifies equitable tolling. Fisher requests an evidentiary hearing to develop his claim.
This court reviews de novo the dismissal of a petition for writ of habeas corpus as time-barred. See Spitsyn v. Moore, 345 F.3d 796, 799 (9th Cir.2003). Fisher is entitled to equitable tolling if he can show "(1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way and prevented timely filing." United States v. Buckles, 647 F.3d 883, 889 (9th Cir.2011), cert. denied; — U.S.-, 132 S.Ct. 436, 181 L.Ed.2d 283 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). He must also show that the extraordinary circumstances caused the untimeliness. Id.
Regardless of whether Fisher's lawyer's conduct constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel, Fisher has not shown that this conduct caused the untimeliness of his § 2255 motion. See Id. at 890 (holding that counsel's ineffective failure to help petitioner file a Rule 4-1 (e) motion "had no effect" on the timeliness of a § 2255 motion). He also failed to show that this conduct was more than "garden variety" negligence. See Doe v. Busby, 661 F.3d 1001, 1011-12 (9th Cir.2011). Because Fisher has not shown circumstances under which he would be entitled to equitable tolling, we also deny his request for a hearing. Cf. Buckles, 647 F.3d at 892.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.