Samuel E. Parris v. D. K. Sisto; Attorney General of the State of California

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).
SMS/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SAMUEL E. PARRIS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
D. K. SISTO; ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 09-15498
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00316-WBS
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
FILED
MAR 03 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

SMS/Research 09-15498 2
California state prisoner Samuel E. Parris appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Parris contends that several extraordinary circumstances prevented his
timely filing of a federal habeas petition and that equitable tolling was warranted.
The district court did not err when it dismissed Parris’ habeas petition as untimely.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Parris is not entitled to equitable tolling because he
has failed to show that he had been pursuing his rights diligently and that
extraordinary circumstances prevented him from timely filing his federal habeas
petition. See Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005). The district court
also did not abuse its discretion when it declined to hold an evidentiary hearing
regarding Parris’ assertions of diligence and mental incapacity because the record
is sufficiently developed to allow this Court to evaluate Parris’ arguments. See
Williams v. Woodford, 384 F.3d 567, 591 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that an
evidentiary hearing is not warranted where “the documentary evidence submitted
fully presented the relevant facts of [petitioner’s] claim” and where an evidentiary
hearing “would not offer any reasonable chance of altering [the district court’s]
view of the facts.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --