Paul Carrillo v. Matthew Cate, et al, No. 09-56527 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 22 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PAUL CARRILLO, No. 09-56527 Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:08-cv-02165-LABPOR v. MATTHEW CATE, Warden and JERRY BROWN, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM * Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 16, 2010 ** Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. 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. * 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). 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. AFFIRMED. 2 09-56527

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.