Audencio Maldonado v. Daniel Paramo
702 F. App'x 644
9th Cir.2017Background
- Petitioner Audencio Maldonado was convicted in Santa Clara County; his conviction became final on July 6, 2007.
- Maldonado filed a state habeas petition in Superior Court on September 11, 2013 — more than six years after the conviction became final.
- He sought equitable tolling of the AEDPA one-year statute of limitations, claiming severe mental impairment prevented timely filing for at least five years and two months.
- The district court denied relief, finding (1) insufficient evidence of a mental impairment so severe as to prevent understanding or preparing a habeas petition during the limitations period, and (2) lack of diligence by Maldonado.
- The record the court relied on included: plea colloquy transcripts showing comprehension with an interpreter; police statements indicating awareness that his conduct was wrong; a presentence report noting depressive disorder but stability on medication; prison mental-health records showing placement at the lowest outpatient-equivalent level (CCCMS); written ADA accommodation requests; and prepetition motions filed in Superior Court.
- The main contrary evidence was nonexpert inmate statements about low mental capacity and Maldonado’s statements at arrest attributing behavior to a motorcycle-accident-related problem or "the devil." The Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Maldonado's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether equitable tolling applies because of severe mental impairment | Maldonado argued his impairment prevented him from understanding or preparing a timely habeas petition for ~5 years | State argued the record showed Maldonado was capable and not so impaired; no tolling warranted | No equitable tolling; Maldonado failed to show severe impairment |
| Whether Maldonado acted with diligence in pursuing his claims | Maldonado contended he pursued claims to the extent possible given impairment | State argued Maldonado showed no inability to obtain assistance earlier and later pursued ADA claims and filings, showing capacity | No diligence shown; failure to demonstrate reasonable diligence |
| Adequacy of evidence showing incapacity | Maldonado relied on inmate statements and his own arrest statements | State relied on plea colloquy, police admissions, presentence/prison mental-health records, prepetition filings | Court found no clear error in district court’s assessment that the weight of evidence showed capacity |
| Whether district court’s factual findings were clearly erroneous | Maldonado claimed the findings mischaracterized his mental condition | State defended district court findings as supported by record | Findings not clearly erroneous; decision affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bills v. Clark, 628 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2010) (two-part test for equitable tolling based on mental impairment)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (diligence standard for equitable tolling under AEDPA)
- Lemire v. Cal. Dep’t of Corrections & Rehabilitation, 726 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2013) (describing CCCMS as lowest level outpatient-equivalent prison mental-health care)