NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT APR 28 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
SCOTT THOMAS McALPIN, No. 14-15181
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:12-cv-06015-WHA
v.
MEMORANDUM*
M.D. McDONALD,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 22, 2015 **
Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Scott Thomas McAlpin appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo the district court’s
decision that a § 2254 habeas petition is untimely, see Bills v. Clark, 628 F.3d
*
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).
1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2010), as well as its denial of the claims on the merits, see
Stanley v. Cullen, 633 F.3d 852, 859 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
McAlpin does not challenge the district court’s determination that his
petition is time-barred. Upon review of the record, we agree with the district
court’s timeliness ruling. McAlpin is not entitled to sufficient statutory tolling
under § 2244(d)(2) to render his petition timely. The record also does not disclose
the existence of a mental impairment sufficient to warrant equitable tolling. See
Bills, 628 F.3d at 1099-1101.
The district court also correctly concluded that, even if his petition were
timely, McAlpin is not entitled to relief. The state court’s rejection of McAlpin’s
claims regarding jury selection and jury instructions was not contrary to, nor an
unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, nor an unreasonable
determination of the facts based on the evidence presented. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(d); J.E.B. v. Alabama, 511 U.S. 127 (1994); Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S.
62, 72 (1991).
AFFIRMED.
2 14-15181