Rocha

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Kelvin Leon Austin appeals the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo, see Smith v. Duncan, 297 F.3d 809, 811 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.

*657 Austin contends that he is entitled to additional statutory tolling from the time of the final ruling on his state habeas petition by the California Supreme Court, until the denial of his second state habeas petition by the California Court of Appeal. He is mistaken, as his second round of petitions made no attempt to correct his prior petition, and were not offered to remedy deficiencies. See King v. Roe, 340 F.3d 821, 822-23 (9th Cir.2003) (stating that if a state prisoner’s subsequent state court habeas petitions are not limited to an elaboration of the facts relating to the claims in the first petition, the subsequent petitions constitute new rounds and the gap between the rounds is not tolled).

Austin also contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling but has not alleged extraordinary circumstances beyond his control which prevented him from filing a timely petition. See Frye v. Hickman, 273 F.3d…