From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cisneros v. Baker

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Nov 19, 2015
623 F. App'x 313 (9th Cir. 2015)

Opinion

No. 14-16839

11-19-2015

MAXIMILLIANO CISNEROS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. RENEE BAKER; NEVADA ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondents - Appellees.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

D.C. No. 3:13-cv-00033-MMD-VPC MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada
Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 17, 2015 San Francisco, California Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge and IKUTA and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). --------

Cisneros appeals the district court's determination that he was not entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations applicable to his federal habeas petition, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), and its dismissal of the petition. We affirm. The district court did not err in concluding that Cisneros's attorney's miscalculation of the filing deadline was the sort of garden variety negligence that does not entitle a petitioner to equitable tolling. See Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 651-52 (2010); Miranda v. Castro, 292 F.3d 1063, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2002); Frye v. Hickman, 273 F.3d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir. 2001).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Cisneros v. Baker

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Nov 19, 2015
623 F. App'x 313 (9th Cir. 2015)
Case details for

Cisneros v. Baker

Case Details

Full title:MAXIMILLIANO CISNEROS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. RENEE BAKER; NEVADA…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Nov 19, 2015

Citations

623 F. App'x 313 (9th Cir. 2015)