FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 07 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL DEWAYNE HAYNES, No. 08-17755
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:06-cv-02767-LKK-
DAD
v.
JOHN W. HAVILAND, MEMORANDUM *
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence K. Karlton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 24, 2011 **
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Michael Dewayne Haynes appeals from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as untimely. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
The district court dismissed the petition because Haynes did not offer a
*
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).
persuasive explanation for the 18-month delay between his state habeas filings. In
his opening brief, Haynes argues the petition should not have been dismissed
because California’s timeliness rule is not an independent and adequate state
procedural rule. That contention is foreclosed by Walker v. Martin, 131 S. Ct.
1120, 1128-31 (2011).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Koerner v. Grigas, 328 F.3d 1039, 1048 (9th Cir. 2003).
AFFIRMED.
2 08-17755