Bills v. Clark
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 25008
| 9th Cir. | 2010Background
- Bills, a California state prisoner, was convicted of possession of a sharp instrument by a state prisoner and sentenced to 25-to-life.
- His direct appeal ended with the California Supreme Court denying review on October 29, 2003, finalizing his state judgment 90 days later on January 28, 2004.
- AEDPA gave Bills a one-year federal filing deadline from January 28, 2004; his federal petition was due by January 28, 2005.
- Bills filed a state habeas petition on November 15, 2004, tolling AEDPA; state petition denied October 12, 2005, after which the deadline began running again until December 25, 2005.
- Bills filed a pro se federal habeas petition on October 10, 2006, almost 10 months after the AEDPA deadline.
- An evidentiary hearing occurred where Bills and a clinical psychologist testified about Bills's mental capacity and that his impairment could affect timely filing; experts disagreed on severity and present functioning.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mental impairment can justify AEDPA tolling | Bills argues severe mental impairment-equity tolling. | Clark argues not shown to be an extraordinary circumstance. | Two-part test required; mental impairment may toll if extraordinary and causes inability to file or to secure help. |
| Proper standard for tolling due to mental impairment | Bills contends Dusky-like standard is too narrow; impairment can hinder filing and seeking help. | State contends Dusky-based framework suffices for evaluating capacity to seek and file. | Court adopts a two-prong standard: (1) impairment is extraordinary and prevents understanding need to file or preparing petition; (2) petitioner diligently pursued claims but impairment made timely filing impossible under totality of circumstances. |
| District court's application of the standard | Bills asserts district court failed to apply the new two-prong standard and neglected diligence/assistance considerations. | Clark maintains district court properly evaluated competency and diligence under Dusky-related framework. | Remand required for application of the two-prong standard and assessment of diligence/assistance under the totality of circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (U.S. Supreme Court 1960) (competency to consult and understand proceedings; basis for mental-competence standards)
- Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (U.S. Supreme Court 1993) (applies Dusky standard to guilty plea competence)
- Edwards v. Indiana, 554 U.S. 164 (U.S. Supreme Court 2008) (self-representation competency requires a higher standard than Dusky)
- Calderon v. United States Dist. Court, 128 F.3d 1283 (9th Cir. 1997) (recognizes mental incompetence as extraordinary circumstance warranting tolling)
- Laws v. Lamarque, 351 F.3d 919 (9th Cir. 2003) (mental incompetence can cause delay if it prevents meeting AEDPA deadline)
- Spitsyn v. Moore, 345 F.3d 796 (9th Cir. 2003) (equitable tolling requires extraordinary circumstances and case-specific facts)
- Rohan ex rel. Gates v. Woodford, 334 F.3d 803 (9th Cir. 2003) (due process right to competency in postconviction proceedings)
- Mendoza v. Carey, 449 F.3d 1065 (9th Cir. 2006) (diligence and reliance on available assistance in tolling analysis)
- Harris v. Carter, 515 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2008) (impossibility language not strictly required for tolling; practical impossibility or hardship can justify tolling)
- Bolarinwa v. Williams, 593 F.3d 226 (2d Cir. 2010) (mental illness may constitute extraordinary circumstance depending on severity)