FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 24 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DEWEY DERALD GULLICK, No. 10-15409
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:07-cv-08131-JWS
v.
MEMORANDUM *
BOCK, Deputy Warden; STATE OF
ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
John W. Sedwick, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 8, 2011 **
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner Dewey Derald Gullick appeals pro se from the district
court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as untimely. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Gullick contends that the district court erred by denying equitable tolling of
AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations. In light of Gullick’s ability to file other
petitions, represent himself at a hearing, and the reports on his mental condition
during the relevant time period, Gullick has failed to demonstrate that his mental
condition caused his untimely filing. See Gaston v. Palmer, 417 F.3d 1030, 1034-
35 (9th Cir. 2005), modified on other grounds, 447 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir. 2006).
Further, any inadequate assistance Gullick received from other inmates is not an
extraordinary circumstance that warrants equitable tolling. See Chaffer v. Prosper,
592 F.3d 1046, 1049 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam).
Finally, Gullick contends that, because the state courts incorrectly denied his
state petitions as untimely, statutory tolling renders his federal petition timely.
When a post-conviction petition is untimely under state law, that is the end of the
matter for statutory tolling purposes. See Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 414,
417 (2005).
AFFIRMED.
2 10-15409