Bruce Ellis Johnson v. M. MARTEL, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
BRUCE ELLIS JOHNSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
M. MARTEL, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 11-15673
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-00178-WBS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 21, 2012**
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Bruce Ellis Johnson 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.
FILED
FEB 23 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-15673 2
Johnson contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling because he was not
properly advised about AEDPA and its deadlines, his attorney withheld his legal
file, and he did not have knowledge of the denial of his state habeas petition.
Equitable tolling is not warranted because Johnson has not shown that any of these
circumstances caused the untimely filing of his federal habeas petition. See
Ramirez v. Yates, 571 F.3d 993, 997 (9th Cir. 2009).
We construe Johnson’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the
certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R.
22-1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --