Case Name: Paul Michael TEAHAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. V.M. ALMAGER; Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-10
Citations: 383 F. App'x 615
Docket Number: No. 08-55608
Parties: Paul Michael TEAHAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. V.M. ALMAGER; Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 383
Pages: 615–615

Head Matter:
Paul Michael TEAHAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. V.M. ALMAGER; Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Respondents-Appellees.
No. 08-55608.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 25, 2010.
Filed June 10, 2010.
Paul M. Teahan, Imperial, CA, pro se.
Kyle Niki Shaffer, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, 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 prisoner Paul Michael Teahan appeals 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.
Teahan contends that new reliable evidence of actual innocence entitles him to equitable tolling and excuses the untimely filing of his petition. Teahan bases his claim of actual innocence primarily upon the unsworn alibi statements four witnesses provided to a defense investigator during pre-trial investigation. Assuming that the actual innocence gateway of Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 327, 115 S.Ct. 851, 130 L.Ed.2d 808 (1995), provides a basis for equitable tolling, Teahan has failed to show that, based on this evidence, it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See Smith v. Baldwin, 510 F.3d 1127, 1142 (9th Cir.2007). Therefore, the district court did not err in dismissing his petition as untimely.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.