Jesus Jara v. Charles Ryan

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: July 21, 2020
• Docket: 19-17085
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 21 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JESUS EMMANUEL JARA, No. 19-17085

Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:17-cv-01090-DWL

v. MEMORANDUM* CHARLES L. RYAN; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF ARIZONA,

Respondents-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Dominic W. Lanza, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 14, 2020**

Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

Arizona state prisoner Jesus Emmanuel Jara appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Reviewing de novo, see Patterson v. Stewart,

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 251 F.3d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 2001), we affirm.

The district court concluded that Jara’s habeas petition was untimely and

that his claims failed on the merits. It also granted a certificate of appealability

(“COA”) on the basis that jurists of reason could find these conclusions debatable.

On appeal, Jara has not addressed the timeliness of his petition, or the merits of his

claims, and has thereby waived any challenge to the district court’s dismissal. See

Styers v. Schriro, 547 F.3d 1026, 1028 n.3 (9th Cir. 2008) (certified claims not

addressed in the opening brief are waived).

Jara contends that the lower courts violated his right to counsel on appeal,

and that the state deprived him of his right to challenge his conviction or sentence

by foreclosing his claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. We treat

these claims as a motion to expand the COA, and we deny the motion. See 9th Cir.

R. 22-1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999).

AFFIRMED.

2 19-17085