Noel Scott v. Tom Carey

Ninth Circuit

Noel Scott v. Tom Carey

415 F. App'x 821

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided February 23, 2011·No. 09-15349·Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Noel Phillipe Scott appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Scott contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling due to withholding of legal papers, prison lockdowns, and limited library access. Equitable tolling is not warranted because he has not shown that any of the above grounds caused the untimely filing of his federal habeas petition. See Ramirez v. Yates, 571 F.3d 993, 998 (9th Cir.2009); see also Allen v. Lewis, 255 F.3d 798, 800 (9th Cir.2001) (extraordinary circumstances encountered early on it will normally make it more difficult to demonstrate causation).

We construe appellant’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1 (e); see also 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 Noel Phillipe Scott appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Scott contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling due to withholding of legal papers, prison lockdowns, and limited library access. Equitable tolling is not warranted because he has not shown that any of the above grounds caused the untimely filing of his federal habeas petition. See Ramirez v. Yates, 571 F.3d 993, 998 (9th Cir.2009); see also Allen v. Lewis, 255 F.3d 798, 800 (9th Cir.2001) (extraordinary circumstances encountered early on it will normally make it more difficult to demonstrate causation).

We construe appellant’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1 (e); see also 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.

Noel Scott v. Tom Carey, 415 F. App'x 821 (9th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

415 F. App'x 821 (Noel Scott v. Tom Carey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related