Steve Badue v. Jeffrey A. Beard

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEVE BADUE,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
JEFFREY A. BEARD,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 15-16586
D.C. No. 2:13-cv-02368-WBS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 16, 2016**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Former California state prisoner Steve Badue appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo a district court’s
FILED
AUG 23 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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). Badue’s motion for oral
argument is, therefore, denied.

-- 1 of 2 --

dismissal of a habeas petition as untimely, see Brambles v. Duncan, 412 F.3d
1066, 1069 (9th Cir. 2005), and we affirm.
Badue contends that his actual innocence excuses his untimely filing. This
claim fails because Badue has not presented new, reliable evidence demonstrating
that it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have found him guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt. See McQuiggin v. Perkins, 133 S. Ct. 1924, 1928
(2013).
Appellee’s request for judicial notice is granted.
We treat Badue’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the certificate
of appealability. So treated, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); Hiivala
v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999).
AFFIRMED.
15-16586 2

-- 2 of 2 --