Arteaga v. Scribner

Ninth Circuit

Arteaga v. Scribner

334 F. App'x 99

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 6, 2009

DocketNo. 06-56151

StatusPublished

This text of 334 F. App'x 99 (Arteaga v. Scribner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arteaga v. Scribner, 334 F. App'x 99 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

California state prisoner Anthony Ar-teaga appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Arteaga contends that his petition is timely pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(D) because he did not discover the factual predicate of his claim until five years after his state court conviction became final. The record reflects that with the exercise of due diligence, Arteaga could have discovered the factual predicate in a timely manner. Cf. Hasan v. Galaza, 254 F.3d 1150, 1154-55 (9th Cir.2001).

We construe Arteaga’s briefing of uncer-tified issues as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability, and we deny the motion. See 9th Cir. R. 22 — 1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

California state prisoner Anthony Ar-teaga appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Arteaga contends that his petition is timely pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(D) because he did not discover the factual predicate of his claim until five years after his state court conviction became final. The record reflects that with the exercise of due diligence, Arteaga could have discovered the factual predicate in a timely manner. Cf. Hasan v. Galaza, 254 F.3d 1150, 1154-55 (9th Cir.2001).

We construe Arteaga’s briefing of uncer-tified issues as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability, and we deny the motion. See 9th Cir. R. 22 — 1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

334 F. App'x 99, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arteaga-v-scribner-ca9-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack