
    Michael Dewayne HAYNES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John W. HAVILAND, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 08-17755.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2011.
    
    Filed June 7, 2011.
    Gene Vorobyov, Law Office of Gene Vo-robyov, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Michael Dewayne Haynes, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
    Justain Riley, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Michael Dewayne Haynes 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. § 2258, and we affirm.

The district court dismissed the petition because Haynes did not offer a persuasive explanation for the 18-month delay between his state habeas filings. In his opening brief, Haynes argues the petition should not have been dismissed because California’s timeliness rule is not an independent and adequate state procedural rule. That contention is foreclosed by Walker v. Martin, — U.S. -,- -, 131 S.Ct. 1120, 1128-31, 179 L.Ed.2d 62 (2011).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Koerner v. Grigas, 328 F.3d 1039, 1048 (9th Cir.2003).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     