MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Michael Dewayne Haynes 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. § 2258, and we affirm.

The district court dismissed the petition because Haynes did not offer a persuasive explanation for the 18-month delay between his state habeas filings. In his opening brief, Haynes argues the petition should not have been dismissed because California’s timeliness rule is not an independent and adequate state procedural rule. That contention is foreclosed by Walker v. Martin, — U.S. -,- -, 131 S.Ct. 1120, 1128-31, 179 L.Ed.2d 62 (2011).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Koerner v. Grigas, 328 F.3d 1039, 1048 (9th Cir. 2003).

AFFIRMED.