ROBERT BATTISTE V. A.HEDGEPETH, WARDEN, No. 11-15686 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 19 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERT BATTISTE, No. 11-15686 Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01390-JAM v. MEMORANDUM * ANTHONY HEDGPETH, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 17, 2012 Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Robert Battiste appeals pro se 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. Battiste contends that the district court erred by dismissing his petition as * 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). untimely because his attorney s failure to file a federal habeas petition entitles him to equitable tolling. Battiste is not entitled to equitable tolling because he has not shown that his attorney s conduct was so egregious as to constitute an extraordinary circumstance that prevented him from filing a timely petition. See Holland v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2549, 2563-64 (2010). He also has not shown that he was diligent in pursuing his rights during the relevant time periods. See Bryant v. Ariz. Att y Gen., 499 F.3d 1056, 1061 (9th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of Battiste s petition. AFFIRMED. 2 11-15686
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.
