Michael Thomas v. JAMES YATES; JERRY BROWN, Attorney General of the State of California

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).
EOH/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL THOMAS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JAMES YATES; JERRY BROWN,
Attorney General of the State of
California,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 09-15145
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00095-FCD
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Frank C. Damrell, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
FILED
MAR 02 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

EOH/Research 09-15145 2
California state prisoner Michael Thomas appeals from the district court’s
order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as untimely. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Thomas contends that several extraordinary circumstances prevented his
timely filing of a federal habeas petition and that equitable tolling was warranted.
The district court did not err when it concluded that Thomas was not entitled to
equitable tolling. See Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005); see also
Gaston v. Palmer, 417 F.3d 1030, 1034-35 (9th Cir. 2005), modified on other
grounds by 447 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir. 2006) (requiring showing of causal connection
between alleged “extraordinary circumstance” and inability to file timely federal
habeas petition). Nor did the district court abuse its discretion when it declined to
hold a hearing to determine whether Thomas was entitled to equitable tolling. See
Roy v. Lampert, 465 F.3d 964, 969-70 (9th Cir. 2006).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --