Phallon Leon Harris v. Anthony Hedgpeth

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PHALLON LEON HARRIS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ANTHONY HEDGPETH,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 08-17745
D.C. No. 2:07-cv-00212-JAM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 29, 2010**
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Phallon Leon Harris 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.
FILED
JUL 23 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-17745 2
Harris contends that he is entitled to statutory or equitable tolling because a
series of lockdowns impeded his access to the prison law library. This contention
fails because Harris has not demonstrated that an impediment or extraordinary
circumstance prevented him from timely filing his habeas petition, or that he
diligently pursued his rights. See Ramirez v. Yates, 571 F.3d 993, 998 (9th Cir.
2009); see also Bryant v. Schriro, 499 F.3d 1056, 1060 (9th Cir. 2007). Harris’
contention that he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the issue of tolling also
fails. See Tapia v. Roe, 189 F.3d 1052, 1058 (9th Cir. 1999).
We construe Harris’ briefing of uncertified issues as a motion to expand the
certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R.
22-1(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per
curiam).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --