Davy Pough v. John Marshall

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Davy Kelvin Pough appeals pro se from the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

Pough first contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling. However, Pough has failed to establish that his petition was untimely because of “extraordinary circumstances” beyond his control. See Spitsyn v. Moore, 345 F.3d 796, 799 (9th Cir.2003). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Pough an evidentiary hearing. See Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 474-75 , 127 S.Ct. 1933 , 167 L.Ed.2d 836 (2007).

Pough also contends that he is entitled to statutory tolling. This argument fails because his state court habeas petitions were filed either before the limitations period began or after it had expired. No state court petition was pending during the time the federal habeas statute of limitations was running. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(2); Ferguson v. Palmateer, 321 F.3d 820, 823 (9th Cir.2003) (a state petition does not reinitiate a limitations period that ended before the petition was filed).

Pough’s motion to amend his opening brief for…