LAWRENCE SCHWIGER V. JACK PALMER, No. 13-15564 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OCT 20 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS LAWRENCE E. SCHWIGER, Petitioner - Appellant, No. 13-15564 D.C. No. 3:09-cv-00454-LRHVPC v. JACK PALMER; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, MEMORANDUM* Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted October 7, 2014 San Francisco, California Before: O SCANNLAIN, THOMAS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges. Lawrence Schwiger appeals the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. Dismissal of a habeas petition on timeliness grounds is reviewed de novo, Banjo v. Ayers, 614 F.3d 964, 967 (9th Cir. 2010), as is equitable tolling * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. where the facts are undisputed, Spitsyn v. Moore, 345 F.3d 796, 799 (9th Cir. 2003). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and affirm. As counsel acknowledged during argument, Schwiger s claim that the district judge should have affirmatively advised him to file a new petition is foreclosed by Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004) ( Requiring district courts to advise a pro se litigant in such a manner would undermine district judges role as impartial decisionmakers. ). We expand the certificate of appealability to include the issue of whether equitable tolling is warranted on the grounds that the district court affirmatively misled Schwiger. Under the circumstances presented here, Schwiger was not misled and no extraordinary circumstance stood in his way to prevent timely filing. Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 649 (2010) (quoting Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005)).1 AFFIRMED. 1 Because he is represented by counsel, we decline to entertain Schwiger s pro se motion to take judicial notice. See United States v. Bergman, 813 F.2d 1027, 1030 (9th Cir. 1987). 2

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.