Case Name: Paul CARRILLO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Matthew CATE, Warden and Jerry Brown, Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-11-22
Citations: 404 F. App'x 218
Docket Number: No. 09-56527
Parties: Paul CARRILLO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Matthew CATE, Warden and Jerry Brown, Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 404
Pages: 218–219

Head Matter:
Paul CARRILLO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Matthew CATE, Warden and Jerry Brown, Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 09-56527.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 16, 2010.
Filed Nov. 22, 2010.
Nancy G. Kendall, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Paul Carrillo, Calipatria, CA, pro se.
Kathleen R. Frey, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, 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 Paul Carrillo 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.
Carrillo contends that the district court erred in dismissing his petition as untimely because the one-year limitations period set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) does not apply to petitions challenging administrative decisions. This contention is foreclosed by Shelby v. Bartlett, 391 F.3d 1061, 1063-65 (9th Cir.2004). To the extent that Carrillo is requesting us to overturn the holding of Shelby, we may not do so. See United States v. Camper, 66 F.3d 229, 232 (9th Cir.1995).
The pro se motion to file an amicus brief received by the court on September 8, 2010, is deemed filed and is denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.