Marlowe Brown v. U.S. District Court
Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
California state prisoner Marlowe Brown 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.
The district court properly dismissed the habeas petition as untimely, as it was filed after the one-year statutory limitations period had ended. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d); Banjo v. Ayers, 614 F.3d 964, 967-69 (9th Cir. 2010).
We construe appellant’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22 — 1(e); 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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Marlowe BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. U.S. DISTRICT COURT and Rick Hill, Warden, Respondents-Appellees
- Status
- Unpublished