Lindolfo Thibes v. ROBERT LEGRAND, Warden, and NEVADA ATTORNEY GENERAL

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LINDOLFO THIBES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ROBERT LEGRAND, Warden, and
NEVADA ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 13-16646
D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00339-MMD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 22, 2014**
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Nevada state prisoner Lindolfo Thibes appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his amended 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as
untimely. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo a
FILED
JUL 28 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

district court’s dismissal of a petition for writ of habeas corpus as time-barred, see
Brambles v. Duncan, 412 F.3d 1066, 1069 (9th Cir. 2005), and we affirm.
The district court properly concluded that Thibes’s petition is untimely.
Thibes is not entitled to statutory tolling because the Nevada Supreme Court
dismissed his appeal of the denial of his state habeas petition as untimely. See
Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 417 (2005). Moreover, contrary to Thibes’s
contention in the district court, the fact that he may not have been served with a
copy of the state court’s denial until 2012 does not entitle him to equitable tolling
because the record reflects that he had notice of the denial well over a year before
he filed his federal petition. See id. at 418-19 (petitioner not entitled to equitable
tolling when he has not pursued his rights diligently).
We construe Thibes’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.
13-16646 2

-- 2 of 2 --