FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 12 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GEORGE NOAH BRAGGS, No. 11-16293
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 4:09-cv-03450-SBA
v.
MEMORANDUM *
JAMES A. WALKER, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Saundra B. Armstrong, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 6, 2012 **
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner George Noah Braggs appeals pro se 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.
*
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).
Braggs contends that the district court erroneously concluded Braggs was
not entitled to equitable tolling. The district court properly rejected Braggs’s
equitable tolling arguments because Braggs failed to show that his mental
impairment was an “extraordinary circumstance” beyond his control that made it
impossible to file a timely federal habeas petition. See Bills v. Clark, 628 F.3d
1092, 1099-1100 (9th Cir. 2010).
Braggs also contends that the district court erred in denying him an
evidentiary hearing. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying
Braggs’s request because Braggs’s allegations that he had a severe mental
impairment during the filing period were not supported by the record. See West v.
Ryan, 608 F.3d 477, 484-85 (9th Cir. 2010).
We construe Braggs’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the
certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-
1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
2 11-16293