FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 30 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SAAHDI COLEMAN, No. 09-15390
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:07-cv-00136-FCD
v.
MEMORANDUM *
DERRAL G. ADAMS, Warden and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Frank C. Damrell, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 13, 2010 **
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Saahdi Coleman appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as untimely. We
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo, Chaffer v. Prosper,
592 F.3d 1046, 1048 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam), and we affirm.
Coleman contends the district court erred by determining that he was not
entitled to statutory or equitable tolling for the period between the California Court
of Appeal’s denial of his habeas petition and the filing of his habeas petition with
the California Supreme Court. The district court did not err because Coleman’s
179-day delay in filing was unreasonable, see Chaffer, 593 F.3d at 1048, and he
failed to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances that made it impossible for him
to file on time, see id. at 1048-49.
We construe Coleman’s briefing of uncertified issues as a motion to expand
the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R.
22-1(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per
curiam).
AFFIRMED.
2 09-15390