Alexey Popov v. John Marshall

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).
AH/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALEXEY POPOV,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JOHN MARSHALL,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 07-15464
D.C. No. CV-06-00409-OWW
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Oliver W. Wanger, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Alexey Popov appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as untimely. We
have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
FILED
MAR 03 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

AH/Research 07-15464
Popov contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling of the one-year statute
of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), because the two transfers and the
lockdowns that took place during his incarceration constitute extraordinary
circumstances that made it impossible for him to timely file his federal habeas
petition. We agree with the district court that Popov failed to demonstrate either
that these impediments made it impossible for him to file a timely federal habeas
petition, or that he diligently pursued his rights. See Hughes v. Idaho State Bd. of
Corrections, 800 F.2d 905, 909 (9th Cir. 1986); Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S.
408, 418 (2005).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --