Summary
concluding petitioner was not entitled to equitable tolling due to the absence of Spanish language materials in the prison law library because he had not shown that "throughout the period for which tolling is sought, he was diligently pursuing 'either legal materials in his own language or translation assistance from an inmate, library personnel, or other source.'"
Summary of this case from Herrera v. McDowellOpinion
No. 08-56996.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed March 17, 2011.
Hugh Garcia, Coalinga, CA, pro se.
Jerald Lee Brainin, Esquire, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Kevin Vienna, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 3:07-cv-00048-DMS.
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
California state prisoner Hugh Garcia appeals from the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.
Garcia contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling due to the absence of Spanish language legal materials in the prison law library. This claim fails because, although Garcia has submitted some evidence that he attempted to procure both legal assistance and legal materials in Spanish, he has not shown that, throughout the period for which tolling is sought, he was diligently pursuing "either legal materials in his own language or translation assistance from an inmate, library personnel, or other source." Mendoza v. Carey, 449 F.3d 1065, 1070 (9th Cir. 2006).
Garcia also claims that he is entitled to equitable tolling due to his mental incompetence. Garcia has presented considerable evidence that he suffers from a delusional disorder. Moreover, the crux of the claims in his petition is that his constitutional rights were violated when he was permitted to represent himself at trial notwithstanding this disorder. For these reasons, remand is warranted for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Garcia's delusional disorder is an extraordinary circumstance that prevented a timely federal filing. See Holland v. Florida, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 2549, 2560-62, 177 L.Ed.2d 130 (2010); Laws v. Lamarque, 351 F.3d 919 (9th Cir. 2003) (remand warranted for good-faith allegation that would, if true, support equitable tolling).
We construe Garcia's remaining arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).