Opinion
No. 05-16092.
Argued and Submitted February 15, 2007.
Filed March 16, 2007.
Mark Judge, Coalinga, CA, pro se.
Barry L. Morris, Esq., Hayward, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Peggy S. Ruffra, Esq., Jeffrey M. Laurence, Esq., Ross C. Moody, Esq., AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Oakland, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Marilyn H. Patel, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-04-02536-MHP.
Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
There is no dispute that Judge's petition for habeas corpus was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Because Judge has not shown that "`extraordinary circumstances beyond [his] control ma[d]e it impossible to file a petition on time,'" Spit-syn v. Moore, 345 F.3d 796, 799 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Brambles v. Duncan, 330 F.3d 1197, 1202 (9th Cir. 2003)), he is not entitled to equitable tolling.
Ordinary attorney negligence is not enough to toll the limitations period, "`lest the exceptions swallow the rule.'" Id. (quoting Miranda v. Castro, 292 F.3d 1063, 1066 (9th Cir. 2002)).