MAXIMILLIANO CISNEROS V. RENEE BAKER, No. 14-16839 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 19 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAXIMILLIANO CISNEROS, Petitioner - Appellant, No. 14-16839 D.C. No. 3:13-cv-00033-MMDVPC v. RENEE BAKER; NEVADA ATTORNEY GENERAL, MEMORANDUM* Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 17, 2015** San Francisco, California Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge and IKUTA and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Cisneros appeals the district court’s determination that he was not entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations applicable to his federal habeas petition, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), and its dismissal of the petition. We affirm. The * 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). district court did not err in concluding that Cisneros’s attorney’s miscalculation of the filing deadline was the sort of garden variety negligence that does not entitle a petitioner to equitable tolling. See Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 651–52 (2010); Miranda v. Castro, 292 F.3d 1063, 1067–68 (9th Cir. 2002); Frye v. Hickman, 273 F.3d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir. 2001). AFFIRMED.

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.