Court Opinion

ID: 9384323
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-03 16:00:47.359536+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:52.743317
License: Public Domain

FILED
                           NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             APR 3 2023
                                                                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRUCE WANZO, Jr.,                                No.   20-56072

              Petitioner-Appellant,              D.C. No.
                                                 2:19-cv-05764-JLS-SP
 v.

CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER, Warden,                      MEMORANDUM*

              Respondent-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Central District of California
                   Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted March 30, 2023**
                            San Francisco, California

Before: McKEOWN, GOULD, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

      Bruce Wanzo, Jr. appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his

petition for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that it was untimely pursuant to

the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
§ 2244(d)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we

affirm.

        Wanzo does not contest the district court’s dismissal of his claims

challenging his 1990 conviction as untimely and has therefore forfeited any

objection to the dismissal of those claims. See Miller v. Fairchild Indus., Inc., 797

F.2d 727, 738 (9th Cir. 1986).

        Wanzo failed to raise any constitutional challenge to the Los Angeles

County Superior Court’s 2019 denial of his request for resentencing under former

section 1170.95 of the California Penal Code1 in his federal habeas petition. Nor

did he raise any such challenge in response to a show cause order of the magistrate

judge, in his objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, or in

his motion for a Certificate of Appealability (COA). Therefore, Wanzo has

forfeited any such challenge, and we affirm on that basis. See White v. Klitzkie,

281 F.3d 920, 921–22 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny as moot Wanzo’s motion for

judicial notice of his state court records, Dkt 25.

        AFFIRMED.

        1
            The statute was renumbered as section 1172.6 of the California Penal
Code.
                                            2