NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 27 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

A.A., a minor, by and through his Guardian No. 17-55758 ad Litem, Lorena Arreola, D.C. No. Plaintiff-Appellant, 3:15-cv-01244-H-WVG

v. MEMORANDUM* UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Marilyn L. Huff, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted October 11, 2018 Pasadena, California

Before: SCHROEDER and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and SIMON,** District Judge.

A.A. appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the

United States. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See United States v.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Michael H. Simon, United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation. Kwai Fun Wong, 135 S. Ct. 1625, 1629 (2015). Reviewing de novo, see Booth v.

United States, 914 F.3d 1199, 1203 (9th Cir. 2019), we affirm.

“[A]n attorney’s filing by mail shortly before a deadline expires constitutes

routine negligence.” Okafor v. United States, 846 F.3d 337, 340 (9th Cir. 2017).

Even if the deadline would not have been missed but for the courier’s delivery

delay, we “do not recognize run-of-the mill mistakes as grounds for equitable

tolling” because they do not amount to an “extraordinary circumstance.” Id.

(quoting Luna v. Kernan, 784 F.3d 640, 646 (9th Cir. 2015)). That the U.S. Postal

Service and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services are both branches

of the federal government makes no difference. The Postal Service is “an

independent establishment of the executive branch,” Currier v. Potter, 379 F.3d 716, 725 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting 39 U.S.C. § 201), that is “run more like a

business,” id. (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. v. U.S. Postal Serv., 467 U.S. 512, 519–

20 (1984)).

AFFIRMED.

2