NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUN 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
OMAR TERRELL TAYLOR, No. 16-15426
Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No.
3:08-cv-00401-RCJ-VPC
v.
TIMOTHY FILSON and NEVADA MEMORANDUM*
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondents-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Robert Clive Jones, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted June 15, 2017
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judge, and CARNEY,**
District Judge.
Omar Taylor appeals the district court’s denial of equitable tolling of the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s (“AEDPA”) one-year statute of
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Cormac J. Carney, United States District Judge for the
Central District of California, sitting by designation.
limitations to file a federal habeas petition. In 1997, Taylor entered a written plea
agreement pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970). He did not
file a direct appeal. Rather he filed two state habeas claims—one in 2003, and one
in 2007—both of which were dismissed as untimely. He filed his federal habeas
petition on July 14, 2008. The federal district court also dismissed the petition as
time-barred. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Taylor filed his petition nearly ten years after the one-year statute of
limitations had run on his conviction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), (d)(1)(A)
(imposing a one-year statute of limitations on the filing of federal habeas corpus
petitions, which runs from either the date a petitioner’s judgment becomes final by
conclusion of direct review or the date that time for seeking direct review expired).
Although Taylor alleges that his mental health issues made him unable
rationally or factually to personally understand the need to timely file, or unable
personally to prepare a habeas petition and effectuate its filing, see Bills v. Clark,
628 F.3d 1092, 1100 (9th Cir. 2010), we hold that, like the petitioner in Orthel v.
Yates, 795 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2015), Taylor “grappled periodically with significant
mental health issues,” but “the voluminous medical and prison records show it was
not unreasonable for the district court to determine that [Taylor] was capable of
understanding the need to timely file and effectuating a filing.” See id. at 949; see
2
also Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 649 (2010) (holding that to qualify for
equitable tolling, a petitioner must show “‘(1) that he has been pursuing his rights
diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way’ and
prevented timely filing.” (quoting Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418
(2005))). He was in the general prison population for approximately three years,
where he performed a number of jobs. He also filed two state post-conviction
actions, indicating that he had the means to file a federal action. Moreover, given
the voluminous, complete, and undisputed medical record, the district court did not
abuse its discretion in declining to hold an evidentiary hearing.
AFFIRMED.
3