Case Name: Cesar Francisco VILLA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeanne WOODFORD, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-09-04
Citations: 291 F. App'x 835
Docket Number: No. 06-15043
Parties: Cesar Francisco VILLA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeanne WOODFORD, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 291
Pages: 835–836

Head Matter:
Cesar Francisco VILLA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeanne WOODFORD, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 06-15043.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 26, 2008.
Filed Sept. 4, 2008.
Cesar Francisco Villa, Crescent, CA, pro se.
Nina Wilder, Esq., Weinberg & Wilder, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Juliet B. Haley, Esq., Office of the California Attorney General, Oakland, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: SCHROEDER, KLEINFELD, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Cesar Francisco Villa appeals from the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Villa contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling because his confusion regarding the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act's statutory requirements, combined with a 30-day loss of access to his legal papers due to a prison transfer, constitutes extraordinary circumstances beyond his control. Villa's contention fails because a pro se petitioner's lack of legal sophistication is not an extraordinary circumstance warranting equitable tolling. See Rasberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir.2006). Furthermore, Villa's temporary loss of access to his legal papers, roughly one and one half months into the one-year limitations period, did not prevent him from filing a timely federal habeas petition. See Allen v. Lewis, 255 F.3d 798, 799-801 (9th Cir.2001) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.