Yow Yeh v. Matthew Martel

I.

On July 18, 2006, Yow Ming Yeh pled guilty to one count of battery in California state court for biting a correctional officer while incarcerated at the California Rehabilitation Center. His state court judgment became final on September 18, 2006, when the time for appealing his conviction expired. He filed no direct appeal. In the year that followed, Yeh continued to request assistance for an appeal. On March 28, 2007, Yeh filed an Inmate Appeal Form requesting assistance from the public defender’s office. He also requested a translator. On September 12, 2007, Yeh again requested to meet with his “appeals coordinator.” On September 24, 2007, Yeh filed another Inmate Appeal Form. Over a year later, on October 17, 2008, Yeh filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the California Court of Appeals, which was denied on November 19, 2008. Yeh subsequently filed similar petitions in the California Supreme Court and the Riverside County Superior Court, which were also denied.

On June 8, 2010, more than two and a half years after the limitations period had run, Yeh filed the present Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in federal court. The district court dismissed the…

dissenting:

I dissent. I would conclude that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing Yow Ming Yeh’s federal habeas Petition as untimely. Because Yeh has sufficiently alleged that a combination of extraordinary circumstances prevented him from filing a timely petition, he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to determine whether equitable tolling applies.

The record reveals several barriers to Yeh’s timely filing. At the time Yeh filed his federal Petition in June 2010, he was serving a six-year sentence for his conviction of battery upon a correctional officer. 1 While incarcerated, Yeh lacked any proficiency in the English language. Yeh had also been confined in administrative segregation and did not have legal representation during the time in which he was required to file a federal habeas petition. And as if that was not enough, the record also reflects that Yeh has a history of severe mental illness — a circumstance that the district court failed to address in assessing and denying equitable tolling or a hearing on that matter.

In denying Yeh relief, the majority does consider Yeh’s allegation that his mental impairment tolled the statute of limitations for…

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YOW MING YEH, No. 11-55625 Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 5:10-cv-00965-

JVS-JCG

MATTHEW MARTEL, Chief Deputy Warden (A), Respondent-Appellee. OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted April 7, 2014—Pasadena, California

Filed May 13, 2014

Before: Myron H. Bright,* Jerome Farris, and Andrew D. Hurwitz, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Farris; Dissent by Judge Bright

* The Honorable Myron H. Bright, Senior Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation. SUMMARY**

Habeas Corpus

The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of an 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition.

The panel held that petitioner was not entitled to equitable tolling of the limitations period due to either his limited English proficiency or his mental impairment, because neither constituted an “extraordinary circumstance” that prevented him from timely filing his petition…