22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T47a,MEMORANDUM California state prisoner Michael Thomas appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm. Thomas contends that several extraordinary circumstances prevented his timely filing of a federal habeas petition and that equitable tolling was warranted. The district court did not err when it concluded that Thomas was not entitled to equitable tolling. See Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 , 125 S.Ct. 1807 , 161 L.Ed.2d 669 (2005); see also Gaston v. Palmer, 417 F.3d 1030, 1034-35 (9th Cir.2005), modified on other grounds by 447 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir.2006) (requiring showing of causal connection between alleged “extraordinary circumstance” and inability to file timely federal habeas petition). Nor did the district court abuse its discretion when it declined to hold a hearing to determine whether Thomas was entitled to equitable tolling. See Roy v. Lampert, 465 F.3d 964, 969-70 (9th Cir.2006). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4a7,

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Michael Thomas appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

Thomas contends that several extraordinary circumstances prevented his timely filing of a federal habeas petition and that equitable tolling was warranted. The district court did not err when it concluded that Thomas was not entitled to equitable tolling. See Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 , 125 S.Ct. 1807 , 161 L.Ed.2d 669 (2005); see also Gaston v. Palmer, 417 F.3d 1030, 1034-35 (9th Cir.2005), modified on other grounds by 447 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir.2006) (requiring showing of causal connection between alleged “extraordinary circumstance” and inability to file timely federal habeas petition). Nor did the district court abuse its discretion when it declined to hold a hearing to determine whether Thomas was entitled to equitable tolling. See Roy v. Lampert, 465 F.3d 964, 969-70 (9th Cir.2006).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.