Tate

*744 MEMORANDUM *

California state prisoner Lionel Tate appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas corpus petition challenging his 1984 conviction pursuant to a guilty plea for felony murder and a sentence of life without parole. We affirm.

The district court denied the petition on alternate grounds: as untimely under Rule 9(a) and on the merits. Pursuant to Rule 9(a), a district court may dismiss a habeas petition where “(1) the state has been prejudiced in its ability to respond to the petition, (2) this prejudice resulted from petitioner’s delay, and (3) the petitioner has not acted with reasonable diligence as a matter of law.” Harris v. Pulley, 885 F.2d 1354, 1366 (9th Cir.1988). The state has the initial burden of proof. Id. Here, there has been no particularized showing of actual prejudice linked to Tate’s delay in filing his petition. Although Tate’s counsel was unable to recall all of the details of his actions in this case, the record does not show that the passage of time was the essential cause of his lack of memory or the unavailability of documents. Consequently, we address the merits.

Tate’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim does not warrant granting…