Watson

MEMORANDUM **

Robert C. Watson, a California prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s dismissal as untimely of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we review de novo the dismissal on statute of limitations grounds. See Shelby v. Bartlett, 391 F.3d 1061, 1063 (9th Cir.2004). Because the petition was filed late and because Watson has not shown extraordinary circumstances justifying equitable tolling, we affirm.

We reject the state’s argument that we do not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal because Watson did not file a notice of appeal in district court. Watson filed an application for a certificate of appeal (COA) in this court, which was referred back to district court to be treated as a notice of appeal. This court issued an order on April 16, 2007, construing the COA application as a notice of appeal, and deeming it to be timely filed. We thus have already determined that Watson filed a timely notice of appeal in district court. We also note that we have held that a COA is not required for us to have jurisdiction over a state habeas petition challenging, as Watson’s does, an administrative decision to deny…