Miguel Reyes-Carreon v. BRIAN WILLIAMS, Warden and ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF NEVADA

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MIGUEL REYES-CARREON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
BRIAN WILLIAMS, Warden and
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE
STATE OF NEVADA,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 09-16416
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00591-JCM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Nevada state prisoner Miguel Reyes-Carreon appeals pro se 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.
FILED
OCT 07 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

09-16416 2
Reyes-Carreon contends that the district court should not have dismissed his
petition as untimely filed because he relied on incorrect advice from an “assistant”
in his prison law library. This contention lacks merit. See Miranda v. Castro, 292
F.3d 1063, 1066-68 (9th Cir. 2002) (ruling that equitable tolling was not warranted
where a section 2254 petitioner relied on incorrect advice of former counsel
because petitioner had no right to assistance counsel regarding post-conviction
relief).
Reyes-Carreon’s other contention advanced, concerning his limited language
abilities, lacks merit. See Mendoza v. Carey, 449 F.3d 1065, 1070 (9th Cir. 2006)
(“[A] non-English-speaking petitioner seeking equitable tolling must, at a
minimum, demonstrate that . . . he was unable, despite diligent efforts, to procure
either legal materials in his own language or translation assistance from an inmate,
library personnel, or other source.”) (emphasis added).
Reyes-Carreon’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied.
We construe Reyes-Carreon’s additional arguments 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 3 --

09-16416 3

-- 3 of 3 --