FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 02 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BERNARD TAYLOR, No. 09-16172
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:07-cv-02253-WBS
v.
K. DICKINSON, MEMORANDUM *
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 16, 2010 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Bernard Taylor appeals from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as untimely. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 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).
JC/Research
Taylor contends he is entitled to statutory tolling for the time that elapsed
between the denial of his habeas petition in the Sacramento Superior Court and the
filing of his habeas petition in the California Supreme Court. This contention lacks
merit. See Evans v. Chavis, 546 U.S. 189, 201 (2006); Chaffer v. Prosper, No. 07-
16853, 2010 WL 157488, at *1 (9th Cir. Jan. 19, 2010) (per curiam).
Next, Taylor contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling because his
mental illness affected his ability to file his federal habeas petition on time. The
district court did not clearly err in finding that mental incompetence did not
prevent Taylor from filing a timely habeas petition. See Laws v. Lamarque,
351 F.3d 919, 922-23 (9th Cir. 2003) (stating that equitable tolling is available
only where a petitioner’s mental incompetence somehow made filing a timely
habeas petition impossible). Taylor further contends that during the limitations
period he lost the legal assistance of a fellow inmate and that he also lost his legal
paperwork. This allegation fails to satisfy the standard required for the
extraordinary relief of equitable tolling. See Chaffer, 2010 WL 157488, at *2.
Finally, Taylor contends the district court erred by failing to hold an
evidentiary hearing to determine whether he was entitled to equitable tolling. This
contention fails. See Tapia v. Roe, 189 F.3d 1052, 1056 (9th Cir. 1999).
AFFIRMED.
JC/Research 2 09-16172