timely petition. Hathaway v. State, 119 Nev. 248, 252, 71 P.3d 503, 506
(2003). Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not err in
denying the petition as procedurally barred. 3 Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 4
J.
, J.
Saitta
3 Further, to the extent that appellant claimed an alleged language
barrier provided good cause, the language barrier would not provide good
cause in the instant case as appellant litigated two prior post-conviction
motions. See Mendoza v. Carey, 449 F.3d 1065, 1070 (9th Cir. 2006)
(holding that equitable tolling requires a non-English-speaking petitioner
demonstrate that during the time period, the petitioner was unable to
procure either legal materials in his own language or translation
assistance despite diligent efforts). The first motion was filed during the
time period to file a timely petition. Bad advice from an inmate law clerk
about post-conviction remedies would not provide good cause. See Phelps
v. Director, Prisons, 104 Nev. 656, 660, 764 P.2d 1303, 1306 (1988).
4We have considered the proper person letter received on November
12, 2013, and we conclude that no action is required as this court
considered the documents filed in the record prior to the district court's
oral decision on the petition.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 19474
cc: Hon. Stefany Miley, District Judge
Yoel Guerra
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(U) 1947A oe