From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fisher v. Felker

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Dec 30, 2008
305 F. App'x 477 (9th Cir. 2008)

Opinion

No. 06-55651.

Submitted December 17, 2008.

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

Filed December 30, 2008.

Al Gene Fisher, Jr., Susanville, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-05-07936-R.

Before GOODWIN, WALLACE and RYMER, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM

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


California state prisoner Al Gene Fisher, Jr. appeals from the district court's judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as time-barred. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Fisher contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations because he had inadequate access to the prison law library during prison lock-downs and because he had periods of mental illness. We conclude that Fisher is not entitled to equitable tolling because he has not demonstrated that an extraordinary circumstance stood in his way and prevented timely filing. See Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327, 127 S.Ct. 1079, 1085, 166 L.Ed.2d 924 (2007).

We deny Fisher's request for an evidentiary hearing because, even if his allegations are true, he is not entitled to equitable tolling. See Roy v. Lampert, 465 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2006).

We deny Fisher's request for appointment of counsel.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Fisher v. Felker

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Dec 30, 2008
305 F. App'x 477 (9th Cir. 2008)
Case details for

Fisher v. Felker

Case Details

Full title:AL GENE FISHER, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. FELKER, Respondent-Appellee

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Dec 30, 2008

Citations

305 F. App'x 477 (9th Cir. 2008)