From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Carrillo v. Cate

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nov 22, 2010
404 F. App'x 218 (9th Cir. 2010)


No. 09-56527.

Submitted November 16, 2010.

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

Filed November 22, 2010.

Nancy G. Kendall, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Paul Carrillo, Calipatria, CA, pro se.

Kathleen R. Frey, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 3:08-cv-02165-LAB-POR.

Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.


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

California state prisoner Paul Carrillo appeals 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.

Carrillo contends that the district court erred in dismissing his petition as untimely because the one-year limitations period set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) does not apply to petitions challenging administrative decisions. This contention is foreclosed by Shelby v. Bartlett, 391 F.3d 1061, 1063-65 (9th Cir. 2004). To the extent that Carrillo is requesting us to overturn the holding of Shelby, we may not do so. See United States v. Camper, 66 F.3d 229, 232 (9th Cir. 1995).

The pro se motion to file an amicus brief received by the court on September 8, 2010, is deemed filed and is denied.


Summaries of

Carrillo v. Cate

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nov 22, 2010
404 F. App'x 218 (9th Cir. 2010)
Case details for

Carrillo v. Cate

Case Details

Full title:Paul CARRILLO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Matthew CATE, Warden and Jerry…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Nov 22, 2010


404 F. App'x 218 (9th Cir. 2010)