United States v. 2020-03-09 | 19-55704 | ENVER KARAFILI V. RONALD DAVIS | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ENVER KARAFILI,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

RONALD DAVIS, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 19-55704

D.C. No. 3:18-cv-02418-LAB-NLS

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 3, 2020
**

Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Enver Karafili appeals pro se from the district
court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as successive. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo, see Wentzell v. Neven,
674 F.3d 1124, 1126 (9th Cir. 2012), and we affirm.

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED

MAR 9 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-55704
The district court granted a certificate of appealability on whether Karafili’s
instant section 2254 petition should have been dismissed as successive under 28
U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Karafili fails to make any argument that his petition is not
successive in his opening brief, and therefore has waived this issue. See Koerner v.
Grigas, 328 F.3d 1039, 1048 (9th Cir. 2003) (“In general, [w]e will not ordinarily
consider matters on appeal that are not specifically and distinctly argued in
appellant’s opening brief” (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks
omitted)). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Karafili’s
petition as successive.
On appeal, Karafili solely raises arguments related to the merits of his
petition, which were not included in the certificate of appealability. We treat these
arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability, and deny the
motion. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th
Cir. 1999).
AFFIRMED.