Case Name: James Walter WERBY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Mark NOOTH, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-01-27
Citations: 467 F. App'x 663
Docket Number: No. 11-35217
Parties: James Walter WERBY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Mark NOOTH, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 467
Pages: 663–664

Head Matter:
James Walter WERBY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Mark NOOTH, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 11-35217.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 17, 2012.
Filed Jan. 27, 2012.
Nell Brown, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDOR-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Portland, OR, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Kathleen Cegla, Assistant Attorney General, AGOR-Office of the Oregon Attorney General, Salem, OR, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, 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
Oregon state prisoner James Walter Werby appeals from the district court's judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Werby contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling because of the restrictive conditions under which he was incarcerated. Even assuming this alleged deprivation was an "extraordinary circumstance," equitable tolling is not warranted because Werby failed to show that he exercised diligence in pursuing federal relief or that extraordinary circumstances prevented the timely filing of his section 2254 petition. See Holland v. Florida, — U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 2549, 2562, 177 L.Ed.2d 130 (2010).
Werby's request that we remand for an evidentiary hearing is denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.