Letourneau v. Hickman

Ninth Circuit

Letourneau v. Hickman

116 F. App'x 70

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 14, 2004

DocketNo. 03-16695

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 116 F. App'x 70 (Letourneau v. Hickman) 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

Letourneau v. Hickman, 116 F. App'x 70 (9th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Ronald Raymond LeTourneau appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus as untimely. We affirm.

The statute of limitations for filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal court is one year. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). The statute of limitations in LeTourneau’s case ran from March 12, 1997, until February 19, 1998, and recom[71]*71menced running on May 29,1999. On that date, only 21 days remained for LeTourneau to file a federal habeas petition. However, he did not mail his federal petition untO 325 days later, on May 8, 2000. Therefore, LeTourneau’s habeas petition is time barred.

We disagree with LeTourneau’s argument that his mental disabilities warrant equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. Equitable tolling “is avaüable only when ‘extraordinary circumstances beyond a prisoner’s control made it impossible to file a petition on time.’ ” Smith v. Ratelle, 323 F.3d 813, 819 (9th Cir.2003) (quoting Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Kelly), 163 F.3d 530, 541 (9th Cir.1998) (en banc)). According to the medical records kept by the prison clinical psychologists who examined him, LeTourneau was “intelligent” and his mental health was “within normal limits.” LeTourneau had a basic understanding of his legal position to the extent that he knew he had missed the deadline for filing a habeas petition in federal court. While the Miller letter suggests that LeTourneau’s mental handicaps made it more difficult for him to file a timely petition, the letter does not suggest that the handicaps made it impossible for him to do so. Taken together, the medical records indicate that LeTourneau understood his legal rights and retained the capacity for rational choice.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM

**

Ronald Raymond LeTourneau appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus as untimely. We affirm.

The statute of limitations for filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal court is one year. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). The statute of limitations in LeTourneau’s case ran from March 12, 1997, until February 19, 1998, and recom[71]*71menced running on May 29,1999. On that date, only 21 days remained for LeTourneau to file a federal habeas petition. However, he did not mail his federal petition untO 325 days later, on May 8, 2000. Therefore, LeTourneau’s habeas petition is time barred.

We disagree with LeTourneau’s argument that his mental disabilities warrant equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. Equitable tolling “is avaüable only when ‘extraordinary circumstances beyond a prisoner’s control made it impossible to file a petition on time.’ ” Smith v. Ratelle, 323 F.3d 813, 819 (9th Cir.2003) (quoting Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Kelly), 163 F.3d 530, 541 (9th Cir.1998) (en banc)). According to the medical records kept by the prison clinical psychologists who examined him, LeTourneau was “intelligent” and his mental health was “within normal limits.” LeTourneau had a basic understanding of his legal position to the extent that he knew he had missed the deadline for filing a habeas petition in federal court. While the Miller letter suggests that LeTourneau’s mental handicaps made it more difficult for him to file a timely petition, the letter does not suggest that the handicaps made it impossible for him to do so. Taken together, the medical records indicate that LeTourneau understood his legal rights and retained the capacity for rational choice.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 F. App'x 70, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/letourneau-v-hickman-ca9-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack