Case Name: Mark JUDGE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Derral G. ADAMS, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-03-16
Citations: 224 F. App'x 694
Docket Number: No. 05-16092
Parties: Mark JUDGE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Derral G. ADAMS, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 224
Pages: 694–694

Head Matter:
Mark JUDGE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Derral G. ADAMS, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 05-16092.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Feb. 15, 2007.
Filed March 16, 2007.
Mark Judge, Coalinga, CA, pro se.
Barry L. Morris, Esq., Hayward, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Peggy S. Ruffra, Esq., Jeffrey M. Laurence, Esq., Ross C. Moody, Esq., AGCAOffice of the California Attorney General, Oakland, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
There is no dispute that Judge's petition for habeas corpus was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Because Judge has not shown that '"extraordinary circumstances beyond [his] control ma[d]e it impossible to file a petition on time,' " Spitsyn v. Moore, 345 F.3d 796, 799 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Brambles v. Duncan, 330 F.3d 1197, 1202 (9th Cir.2003)), he is not entitled to equitable tolling.
Ordinary attorney negligence is not enough to toll the limitations period, " 'lest the exceptions swallow the rule.'" Id. (quoting Miranda v. Castro, 292 F.3d 1063,1066 (9th Cir.2002)).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.