Robert Battiste v. ANTHONY HEDGPETH, Warden

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ROBERT BATTISTE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ANTHONY HEDGPETH, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 11-15686
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01390-JAM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 17, 2012
Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Robert Battiste 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.
Battiste contends that the district court erred by dismissing his petition as
FILED
JAN 19 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-15686 2
untimely because his attorney’s failure to file a federal habeas petition entitles him
to equitable tolling. Battiste is not entitled to equitable tolling because he has not
shown that his attorney’s conduct was so egregious as to constitute an
“extraordinary circumstance” that prevented him from filing a timely petition. See
Holland v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2549, 2563-64 (2010). He also has not shown that
he was diligent in pursuing his rights during the relevant time periods. See Bryant
v. Ariz. Att’y Gen., 499 F.3d 1056, 1061 (9th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, we affirm
the dismissal of Battiste’s petition.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --