William Landrum v. Laura Schweitzer; State of Arizona Attorney General

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
WILLIAM LANDRUM,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
LAURA SCHWEITZER; STATE OF
ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 08-17771
D.C. No. 2:07-cv-00952-JWS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
John W. Sedwick, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner William Landrum appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition for untimeliness.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
FILED
OCT 04 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-17771 2
Landrum contends that several extraordinary circumstances prevented the
timely filing of his federal habeas petition and that equitable tolling was warranted.
This argument is waived because it was not properly raised before the district
court. See United States v. Carlson, 900 F.2d 1346, 1349 (9th Cir. 1990).
Furthermore, Landrum was not entitled to equitable tolling. See Rasberry v.
Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir.2006) (“[A] pro se petitioner’s lack of legal
sophistication is not, by itself, an extraordinary circumstance warranting equitable
tolling.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --