Diallo E. Uhuru v. EDMUND G. BROWN, Jr.; JOHN MARSHALL, Warden

09-56722Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit10 févr. 2011

Texte intégral

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
DIALLO E. UHURU,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
EDMUND G. BROWN, Jr.; JOHN
MARSHALL, Warden,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 09-56722
D.C. No. 3:08-cv-02424-IEG-AJB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Irma E. Gonzalez, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 8, 2011**
Pasadena, California
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Diallo E. Uhuru appeals from the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas
petition challenging his 2000 conviction for second degree murder. The district
FILED
FEB 10 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
court dismissed his petition as untimely, finding that Uhuru was not entitled to
equitable tolling for sufficient duration to render his petition timely. We affirm.
We decline the state’s suggestion to review the adequacy of the certificate of
appealability (COA) issued by the district court because we “are not required to
examine allegedly defective COAs in the face of jurisdictional challenges.” Phelps
v. Alameda, 366 F.3d 722, 726 (9th Cir. 2004).
The district court properly concluded that Uhuru was not entitled to
equitable tolling for sufficient duration to make his petition timely. The court
carefully reviewed Uhuru’s medical records and determined those periods of time
for which Uhuru was and was not entitled to equitable tolling. See Bills v. Clark,
--- F.3d ----, 2010 WL 4968692, at *7 (9th Cir. Dec. 8, 2010) (setting out the legal
standard for establishing equitable tolling on account of mental illness). The
records cited by Uhuru do not undermine the district court’s findings.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --

Poursuivez vos recherches dans ChatGPT ou Claude

Connectez Omnilex pour rechercher dans le corpus juridique depuis votre assistant IA.