Adam Robert Robinson v. John C. 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ADAM ROBERT ROBINSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JOHN C. MARSHALL,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 08-55950
D.C. No. 2:07-cv-01606-GHK-
JWJ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
George H. King, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 6, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, RYMER, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Adam Robert Robinson appeals from the dismissal
of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
FILED
DEC 13 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-55950 2
Robinson contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling based on his
inability to access the law library during extended prison lockdowns. This
contention fails because Robinson did not demonstrate how limited access to the
library was the cause of his failure to timely file his petition. See Ramirez v. Yates,
571 F.3d 993, 998 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that limitations on access to the law
library “were neither extraordinary nor made it impossible for him to file his
petition in a timely manner”) (internal citations omitted).
Robinson also contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling based on his
pro se status and his belief that his appointed counsel was filing appropriate
appeals. These contentions fail because pro se status is not, by itself, an
extraordinary circumstance warranting equitable tolling, and because Robinson
failed to present sufficient evidence that he was pursuing his rights diligently. See
Rasberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Ramirez, 571
F.3d at 997-98 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that the lack of knowledge of a state court
decision provides grounds for equitable tolling only where prisoner otherwise
evidenced diligence).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --