William Landrum v. Laura Schweitzer, et al, No. 08-17771 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 04 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WILLIAM LANDRUM, Petitioner - Appellant, No. 08-17771 D.C. No. 2:07-cv-00952-JWS v. MEMORANDUM * LAURA SCHWEITZER; STATE OF ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona John W. Sedwick, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 13, 2010 ** Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Arizona state prisoner William Landrum appeals pro se from the district court s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition for untimeliness. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Landrum contends that several extraordinary circumstances prevented the timely filing of his federal habeas petition and that equitable tolling was warranted. This argument is waived because it was not properly raised before the district court. See United States v. Carlson, 900 F.2d 1346, 1349 (9th Cir. 1990). Furthermore, Landrum was not entitled to equitable tolling. See Rasberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir.2006) ( [A] pro se petitioner s lack of legal sophistication is not, by itself, an extraordinary circumstance warranting equitable tolling. ). AFFIRMED. 2 08-17771

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.