# Marlowe Brown v. U.S. District Court

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · February 22, 2012 · 468 F. App'x 768

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/623355

## Case

- **Full name:** Marlowe BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. U.S. DISTRICT COURT and Rick Hill, Warden, Respondents-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** February 22, 2012
- **Citations:** 468 F. App'x 768
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Fernandez, McKeown, Bybee
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/623355

## Opinion text

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 22 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARLOWE BROWN, No. 11-15255

Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-03241-JAM

v.
MEMORANDUM *
U.S. DISTRICT COURT and RICK HILL,
Warden,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 21, 2012 **

Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Marlowe Brown 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. Appellant. P. 34(a)(2).
The district court properly dismissed the habeas petition as untimely, as it

was filed after the one-year statutory limitations period had ended. See 28 U.S.C. §

2244(d); Banjo v. Ayers, 614 F.3d 964, 967-69 (9th Cir. 2010).

We construe appellant’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 11-15255

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/623355. Public record. Not legal advice.