Abraham Soto v. Raul Lopez
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Abraham Soto appeals 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 . We review de novo a district court’s decision to dismiss a § 2254 petition as untimely, see Chaffer v. Prosper, 592 F.3d 1046, 1048 (9th Cir.2010), and we affirm.
Soto contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling because he lacked access to the law library and his legal materials while he was in administrative segregation and during a prison transfer. Soto has not demonstrated that these ordinary prison limitations amounted to an extraordinary circumstance beyond his control preventing him from timely filing his federal habeas petition. See Ramirez v. Yates, 571 F.3d 993, 998 (9th Cir.2009) (petitioner not entitled to equitable tolling “simply because he remained in administrative segregation and had limited access to” law library and copy machine). Significantly, Soto filed a second state habeas petition with the California Supreme Court before the federal statute of limitations expired. See id. (observing that petitioner was able to file “other substantial legal filings”…