From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wright v. McDonald

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Feb 9, 2012
No. 09-55905 (9th Cir. Feb. 9, 2012)

Opinion

No. 09-55905 D.C. No. 3:08-cv-02255-JM-PCL

02-09-2012

OCIE OLA WRIGHT, Jr., Petitioner - Appellant, v. MICHAEL D. MCDONALD, Respondent - Appellee.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION


MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.


Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Jeffrey T. Miller, Senior District Judge, Presiding


Pasadena, California

Before: D.W. NELSON, O'SCANNLAIN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Ocie Ola Wright, Jr. appeals the district court's conclusion that his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition was time-barred by the one-year statute of limitations in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. We granted a certificate of appealability regarding whether Wright was entitled to equitable tolling. We affirm the district court.

Although Wright briefed a non-certified issue, we decline to expand the certificate of appealability to include it, and thus, we will not review the issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1103-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).
--------

"The dismissal of a petition for writ of habeas corpus as time-barred is reviewed de novo. If the facts underlying a claim for equitable tolling are undisputed, the question of whether the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled is also reviewed de novo." Bills v. Clark, 628 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation mark omitted). However, a district court's factual findings and finding of competency are reviewed for clear error. Id. "A petitioner seeking equitable tolling bears the burden of showing both that there were extraordinary circumstances, and that the extraordinary circumstances were the cause of his untimeliness." Roberts v. Marshall, 627 F.3d 768, 772 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, after assessing the medical documentation submitted by Wright, the district court did not clearly err in finding that Wright failed to demonstrate cognitive impairment rising to the level of an extraordinary circumstance. Further, Wright has failed to show that his alleged mental illnesses caused his untimely habeas filing.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Wright v. McDonald

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Feb 9, 2012
No. 09-55905 (9th Cir. Feb. 9, 2012)
Case details for

Wright v. McDonald

Case Details

Full title:OCIE OLA WRIGHT, Jr., Petitioner - Appellant, v. MICHAEL D. MCDONALD…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Feb 9, 2012

Citations

No. 09-55905 (9th Cir. Feb. 9, 2012)

Citing Cases

Chatman v. Hill

Thus, we would generally review the district court's finding regarding Stancle's competency for clear error."…