JARA v. RYAN (2020)

MEMORANDUM **

Arizona state prisoner Jesus Emmanuel Jara appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Reviewing de novo, see Patterson v. Stewart, 251 F.3d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 2001), we affirm.

The district court concluded that Jara's habeas petition was untimely and that his claims failed on the merits. It also granted a certificate of appealability (“COA”) on the basis that jurists of reason could find these conclusions debatable. On appeal, Jara has not addressed the timeliness of his petition, or the merits of his claims, and has thereby waived any challenge to the district court's dismissal. See Styers v. Schriro, 547 F.3d 1026, 1028 n.3 (9th Cir. 2008) (certified claims not addressed in the opening brief are waived).

Jara contends that the lower courts violated his right to counsel on appeal, and that the state deprived him of his right to challenge his conviction or sentence by foreclosing his claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. We treat these claims as a motion to expand the COA, and we deny the motion. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999).

AFFIRMED.