From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Robinson v. Marshall

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Dec 13, 2010
405 F. App'x 241 (9th Cir. 2010)

Opinion

No. 08-55950.

Submitted December 6, 2010.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed December 13, 2010.

Jan Burns Norman, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Adam Robert Robinson, San Luis Obispo, CA, pro se.

David Elgin Madeo, Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, George H. King, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 2:07-cv-01606-GHKJWJ.

Before: GOODWIN, RYMER, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.



MEMORANDUM

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

California state prisoner Adam Robert Robinson appeals from the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Robinson contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling based on his inability to access the law library during extended prison lockdowns. This contention fails because Robinson did not demonstrate how limited access to the library was the cause of his failure to timely file his petition. See Ramirez v. Yates, 571 F.3d 993, 998 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that limitations on access to the law library "were neither extraordinary nor made it impossible for him to file his petition in a timely manner") (internal citations omitted).

Robinson also contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling based on his pro se status and his belief that his appointed counsel was filing appropriate appeals. These contentions fail because pro se status is not, by itself, an extraordinary circumstance warranting equitable tolling, and because Robinson failed to present sufficient evidence that he was pursuing his rights diligently. See Rasberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Ramirez, 571 F.3d at 997-98 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that the lack of knowledge of a state court decision provides grounds for equitable tolling only where prisoner otherwise evidenced diligence).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Robinson v. Marshall

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Dec 13, 2010
405 F. App'x 241 (9th Cir. 2010)
Case details for

Robinson v. Marshall

Case Details

Full title:Adam Robert ROBINSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John C. MARSHALL…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Dec 13, 2010

Citations

405 F. App'x 241 (9th Cir. 2010)

Citing Cases

Valles v. Allison

See Ramirez, 571 F.3d at 998 (recognizing that a “complete lack of access to a legal file may constitute an…

United States v. Rocha

Rocha's assertions regarding his ability to file a § 2255 motion during the COVID pandemic are too…