Danto Palomino v. John Marshall

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). Accordingly, Palomino’s
request for oral argument is denied.
JC/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DANTO PALOMINO,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JOHN MARSHALL,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 08-55065
D.C. No. 07-cv-04769-DOC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Danto Palomino appeals from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as untimely. We have
FILED
MAR 02 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JC/Research 08-55065 2
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Palomino contends he is entitled to statutory tolling for the time that elapsed
between the denial of his habeas petition in the Los Angeles Superior Court and the
filing of his habeas petition in the California Court of Appeal. This contention
lacks merit. See Evans v. Chavis, 546 U.S. 189, 201 (2006); Chaffer v. Prosper,
No. 07-16853, 2010 WL 157488, at *1 (9th Cir. Jan. 19, 2010) (per curiam) (filing
gaps of 101 and 115 days not subject to statutory tolling).
Palomino also contends he is entitled to equitable tolling because “prison
workers did not let [him] write the court.” This bare allegation fails to satisfy the
standard required for such extraordinary relief. See Chaffer, 2010 WL 157488, at
*2. To the extent that Palomino contends he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing
on this issue, this contention lacks merit. See Tapia v. Roe, 189 F.3d 1052, 1056
(9th Cir. 1999).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --