Summary
finding that difficulty of investigating claims did not constitute an extraordinary circumstance that prevented timely filing
Summary of this case from Sorrells v. SpearmanOpinion
No. 12-17650
09-30-2014
ROXANNE CORINNE PERDIGONE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. RON DAVIS, Respondent - Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-03454-WBS MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding
Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
California state prisoner Roxanne Corinne Perdigone appeals from the district court's judgment dismissing her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo a district court's dismissal of a federal habeas petition on statute of limitations grounds, see Mendoza v. Carey, 449 F.3d 1065, 1068 (9th Cir. 2006), and we affirm.
Perdigone contends that she is entitled to equitable tolling because of the unavailability of two witnesses and because her incarceration made it difficult for her to complete her investigation until February 9, 2010. Perdigone has not shown that she diligently pursued her rights, or that an extraordinary circumstance beyond her control prevented her from timely filing her habeas petition. See Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 649 (2010); Chaffer v. Prosper, 592 F.3d 1046, 1048 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (petitioner bears the "heavy burden" of showing that she diligently pursued her rights and that an extraordinary circumstance stood in her way).
We construe Perdigone's additional arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.