Chesbro

Chesbro v. Idaho

Good Law
190 F. App'x 538
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 27, 2006No. 05-35589California483 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Mark A. Chesbro appeals from the district court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The lower court dismissed Chesbro’s petition for failure to comply with the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s (AEDPA) one-year statute of limitations. 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(1)(A). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2258 and we affirm.

The district court’s dismissal of a habeas petition for untimeliness is reviewed de novo. Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir.2001).

Chesbro argues that his bi-polar disorder constitutes an extraordinary circumstance beyond his control which rendered him unable to file his petition in a timely manner, and he contends that the evidence presented to the district court warranted an evidentiary hearing on his equitable tolling claim.

A prisoner is entitled to equitable tolling of AEDPA’s limitations period “only if extraordinary circumstances beyond [his] control make it impossible to file a petition on time.” Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1107 (9th Cir.1999) (citations omitted). Mental incompetency has been considered such an extraordinary circumstance beyond the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.