U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2010

Frank Perea v. Paula Soelle

Frank Perea v. Paula Soelle
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided April 15, 2010 · Rymer, McKeown, Paez
375 F. App'x 800

Counsel

Jon Anderson, Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Respondents-Ap-pellees.

Frank Perea v. Paula Soelle

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Former Arizona state prisoner Frank Michael Perea appeals pro se from the district court’s'judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Perea contends he is entitled to equitable tolling because an assistant federal public defender, not representing him, provided an outdated courthouse mailing address that caused him to file his habeas petition late. We agree with the district court that Perea has not demonstrated that an extraordinary circumstance beyond his control prevented him from timely filing his habeas petition, or that he has been pursuing his rights diligently. See Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418, 125 S.Ct. 1807, 161 L.Ed.2d 669 (2005); see also Miranda v. Castro, 292 F.3d 1063, 1068 (9th Cir. 2002).

We construe Perea’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-l(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.