Saahdi Coleman v. Derral Adams, et al, No. 09-15390 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 30 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SAAHDI COLEMAN, No. 09-15390 Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:07-cv-00136-FCD v. MEMORANDUM * DERRAL G. ADAMS, Warden and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Frank C. Damrell, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 13, 2010 ** Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Saahdi Coleman appeals pro se from the district court s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as untimely. We * 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). have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo, Chaffer v. Prosper, 592 F.3d 1046, 1048 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam), and we affirm. Coleman contends the district court erred by determining that he was not entitled to statutory or equitable tolling for the period between the California Court of Appeal s denial of his habeas petition and the filing of his habeas petition with the California Supreme Court. The district court did not err because Coleman s 179-day delay in filing was unreasonable, see Chaffer, 593 F.3d at 1048, and he failed to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances that made it impossible for him to file on time, see id. at 1048-49. We construe Coleman s briefing of uncertified issues 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. 2 09-15390

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.