Gray
Gray v. Runnels
Opinion
Lead Opinion
*398 MEMORANDUM **
California state prisoner Gregory Lee Gray appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition, which challenges his convictions and 30-years-to-life sentence for attempted carjacking and attempted kidnaping. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (a). Reviewing de novo, Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1105 (9th Cir.1999), we affirm.
The district court dismissed Gray’s petition as time-barred. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(1) (stating that a one-year period of limitation applies to habeas corpus petitions filed by state prisoners). Gray contends that this dismissal was erroneous because he is entitled to equitable tolling on account of prison lockdowns. However, Gray was able to file an earlier federal petition on time and during a lockdown, and he filed the present petition during a lockdown. Because he thus has not shown that the lockdowns made it impossible for him to file a petition on time, he is not entitled to equitable tolling. See Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Kelly), 163 F.3d 530 , 541 (9th Cir.1998) (en banc) (stating that equitable tolling is available when “extraordinary circumstances beyond…