Janet L. Mora v. MARY LATTIMORE, Warden

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
LNOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JANET L. MORA,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
MARY LATTIMORE, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 08-56018
D.C. No. CV-07-05519-MMM-
AGR
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Margaret M. Morrow, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2010*
Before: SKOPIL, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Janet Mora appeals from the district court’s
judgment dismissing her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely filed. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm.
FILED
FEB 15 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

Mora’s unopposed request for judicial notice is GRANTED in part. The1
court takes judicial notice of the trial court’s minute order of July 29, 2005 and
Mora’s Motion for Production of Transcripts filed September 14, 2006.
2
Mora contends she is entitled to equitable tolling of AEDPA’s one-year
limitation period. This contention lacks merit. Even assuming the statute of
limitations began to run when Mora first learned that counsel had not filed an
appeal, her petition remains untimely. Equitable tolling is not warranted because
Mora failed to show she exercised diligence in pursuing relief or that extraordinary
circumstances prevented the timely filing of her § 2254 petition. See Holland v.
Florida, 130 S.Ct. 2549, 2562 (2010); Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418
(2005); Miranda v. Castro, 292 F.3d 1063, 1066-67 (9th Cir. 2002).
We decline to consider the uncertified issue raised in Mora’s brief as she has
not made a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” See 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000);
Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).1
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --