Case Name: Robert Bradford MARTINEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles L. RYAN, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-05-16
Citations: 133 F. App'x 382
Docket Number: No. 04-16568
Parties: Robert Bradford MARTINEZ, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Charles L. RYAN, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, CANBY, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 133
Pages: 382–383

Head Matter:
Robert Bradford MARTINEZ, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Charles L. RYAN, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 04-16568.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 9, 2005.
Decided May 16, 2005.
Rick Jones, Tucson, AZ, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Robert Bradford Martinez, Buckeye, AZ, pro se.
Diane M. Acosta, Esq., AGAZ—Office of the Arizona Attorney General, Phoenix, AZ, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: PREGERSON, CANBY, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Arizona state prisoner Robert Bradford Martinez appeals the district court's dismissal as untimely of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his conviction for first degree murder, armed robbery, kidnaping and theft by means of transportation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo, see Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1105 (9th Cir.1999), and we affirm.
Martinez contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act's one-year pe riod of limitation due to his limited education, his reliance on other prisoners to file his petition, and his lack of access to legal materials and assistance given his custody status. We disagree. Even assuming these problems to be true, they do not constitute extraordinary circumstances which made timely filing impossible. See id. at 1107.
Martinez's request to broaden the certificate of appealability is granted. See 9th Cir. R. 22-l(e); Isley v. Arizona Dep't of Corr., 388 F.3d 1054, 1055-56 (2004) (holding that appellant is entitled statutory tolling from date of filing notice of post-conviction relief petition). However, even with the benefit of statutory tolling, the petition is still untimely.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.