Hugh Garcia v. James Yates

Ninth Circuit

Hugh Garcia v. James Yates

422 F. App'x 584

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 17, 2011

Docket08-56996

StatusUnpublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 422 F. App'x 584 (Hugh Garcia v. James Yates) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hugh Garcia v. James Yates, 422 F. App'x 584 (9th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Hugh Garcia appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

Garcia contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling due to the absence of Spanish language legal materials in the prison law library. This claim fails because, although Garcia has submitted some evidence that he attempted to procure both legal assistance and legal materials in Spanish, he has not shown that, throughout the period for which tolling is sought, he was diligently pursuing “either legal materials in his own language or translation assistance from an inmate, library personnel, or other source.” Mendoza v. Carey, 449 F.3d 1065, 1070 (9th Cir.2006).

Garcia also claims that he is entitled to equitable tolling due to his mental incompetence. Garcia has presented considerable evidence that he suffers from a delusional disorder. Moreover, the crux of the claims in his petition is that his constitutional rights were violated when he was permitted to represent himself at trial notwithstanding this disorder. For these reasons, remand is warranted for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Garcia’s delusional disorder is an extraordinary circumstance that prevented a timely federal filing. See Holland v. Florida, -U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 2549, 2560-62, 177 L.Ed.2d 130 (2010); Laws v. Lamarque, 351 F.3d 919 (9th Cir.2003) (remand warranted for good-faith allegation that would, if true, support equitable tolling).

We construe Garcia’s remaining arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22 — 1(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED in part, VACATED and REMANDED in part.

**

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Hugh Garcia appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

Garcia contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling due to the absence of Spanish language legal materials in the prison law library. This claim fails because, although Garcia has submitted some evidence that he attempted to procure both legal assistance and legal materials in Spanish, he has not shown that, throughout the period for which tolling is sought, he was diligently pursuing “either legal materials in his own language or translation assistance from an inmate, library personnel, or other source.” Mendoza v. Carey, 449 F.3d 1065, 1070 (9th Cir.2006).

Garcia also claims that he is entitled to equitable tolling due to his mental incompetence. Garcia has presented considerable evidence that he suffers from a delusional disorder. Moreover, the crux of the claims in his petition is that his constitutional rights were violated when he was permitted to represent himself at trial notwithstanding this disorder. For these reasons, remand is warranted for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Garcia’s delusional disorder is an extraordinary circumstance that prevented a timely federal filing. See Holland v. Florida, -U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 2549, 2560-62, 177 L.Ed.2d 130 (2010); Laws v. Lamarque, 351 F.3d 919 (9th Cir.2003) (remand warranted for good-faith allegation that would, if true, support equitable tolling).

We construe Garcia’s remaining arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22 — 1(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED in part, VACATED and REMANDED in part.

**

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

422 F. App'x 584, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hugh-garcia-v-james-yates-ca9-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack