Paul Carrillo v. Matthew Cate
Paul CARRILLO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Matthew CATE, Warden and Jerry Brown, Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Trial judge
- Larry Alan Burns (district judge)
- Outcome
- affirmed — AFFIRMED.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Atsushi W. Tashima (author), Marsha S. Berzon, Richard R. Clifton
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PAUL CARRILLO, No. 09-56527 Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:08-cv-02165-LAB- POR v. MATTHEW CATE, Warden and JERRY MEMORANDUM * BROWN, Attorney General, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 16, 2010 ** Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Paul Carrillo 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.
* 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). Carrillo contends that the district court erred in dismissing his petition as untimely because the one-year limitations period set forth in 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(d)(1) does not apply to petitions challenging administrative decisions. This contention is foreclosed by Shelby v. Bartlett, 391 F.3d 1061, 1063-65 (9th Cir.
2004). To the extent that Carrillo is requesting us to overturn the holding of Shelby, we may not do so. See United States v. Camper, 66 F.3d 229, 232 (9th Cir.
1995).
The pro se motion to file an amicus brief received by the court on September 8, 2010, is deemed filed and is denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 09-56527