Enver Karafili v. James Tilton
Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Enver Karafili appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as untimely pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). We affirm.
The district court did not err in finding that Karafili’s mental condition was not so severe that he was unable to file a timely federal petition. See Bills v. Clark, 628 F.3d 1092, 1099-1100 (9th Cir.2010). As for Karafili’s limited English skills, the record does not establish that he requested and was unable to obtain a translator or that it was his limited English skills that caused him to file an untimely federal petition. Cf. Mendoza v. Carey, 449 F.3d 1065, 1071 (9th Cir.2006). Equitable tolling was correctly denied.
We decline to certify the uncertified issues raised by Karafili.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
449 F. App'x 633 (Enver Karafili v. James Tilton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.