Carl D. Mitchell v. CALVIN CHAPPELL, Warden

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARL D. MITCHELL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
CALVIN CHAPPELL, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 15-15721
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-00296-MCE
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 20, 2016**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Carl D. Mitchell appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo the district court’s denial
of a habeas petition as untimely, see Ramirez v. Yates, 571 F.3d 993, 997 (9th Cir.
FILED
JAN 28 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 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

2009), and we affirm.
In his only certified claim on appeal, Mitchell argues that the Supreme
Court’s decision in Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320 (2010), reset the one-year
statute of limitations period to file a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(d)(1)(C). Mitchell’s reliance on Magwood is misplaced; Magwood
interpreted the phrase “second or successive” as used in section 2244(b), and it did
not newly recognize a constitutional right that has been made retroactively
applicable to cases on collateral review. See § 2244(d)(1)(C); Magwood, 561 U.S.
at 331-36.
We treat Mitchell’s briefing of 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.
15-15721 2

-- 2 of 2 --