Escobar

Escobar v. Newland

Good Law
58 F. App'x 267
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 17, 2003No. 00-56686; D.C. No. CV-99-09415-FMCCalifornia258 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Luis Escobar, a California state prisoner, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and affirm.

Escobar contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling because his retained counsel did not notify him that his state petition had been denied, did not file a timely habeas petition, or in the alternative, failed to forward case materials or a pro se habeas petition. Escobar’s contention lacks merit because his counsel’s failures do not qualify as extraordinary circumstances warranting equitable tolling. See Frye v. Hickman, 273 F.3d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir.2001) (denying equitable tolling based *268 on counsel’s negligence), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1055 , 122 S.Ct. 1913 , 152 L.Ed.2d 823 (2002); Miranda v. Castro, 292 F.3d 1063, 1067-68 (9th Cir.) (rejecting equitable tolling claim despite counsel’s miscalculation of the AJEDPA deadline), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 123 S.Ct. 496 , 154 L.Ed.2d 399 (2002).

Escobar also contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling because he was denied access to legal materials in the law library while in administrative segregation. This…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.