Alan E. Bertran v. United States Central District

discussion. Each of those arguments is addressed in this Order. 26 A. Petitioner’s Lack of Legal Sophistication 27 Petitioner challenges the conclusions of the Magistrate Judge about 28 1 Petitioner’s lack of diligence in learning of the denial of his state court 2 petition for review. He argues that this determination overlooks that 3 Petitioner is a layman who had no reason not to rely on his appointed counsel 4 to provide him with timely notice that the petition for review had been denied. 5 [See Dkt. No. 28 at 6-8]. 1 However, Petitioner did not have to have legal 6 training to know that he could ask his appointed counsel about the status of 7 the petition for review during the nearly two-year period after which it had 8 been denied. Further, the Ninth Circuit has held that “a pro se petitioner’s 9 lack of legal sophistication is not, by itself, an extraordinary circumstance 10 warranting equitable tolling.” Rasberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th 11 Cir. 2006); Waldron-Ramsey v. Pacholke, 556 F.3d 1008, 1013 n.4 (9th Cir. 12 2009) (“[W]e have held that a pro se petitioner’s confusion or ignorance of the 13 law is not, itself, a circumstance warranting…