Klee Orthel v. James Yates, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13067

Orthel was convicted in California in 1995 of first-degree murder and firearm use; state appeals concluded in 1998.
He filed a federal habeas petition on August 17, 2010, raising instructional-error claim; State moved to dismiss as untimely under AEDPA § 2244(d).
Orthel argued for equitable tolling based on mental incompetence and initially submitted limited medical evidence showing prior involuntary medication.
The district court ordered production of full mental-health and prison records; the State lodged a 2,266‑page medical record and renewed its motion.
The district court found, on the full record, that Orthel was sufficiently competent during the relevant period (notably June 1998–2006) and dismissed the petition as untimely; no evidentiary hearing was held.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reviewed competency findings for clear error and affirmed dismissal and the district court’s refusal to hold an evidentiary hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Orthel is entitled to equitable tolling of AEDPA’s 1‑year limitation due to mental incompetence	Orthel: mental impairment prevented understanding need to file and rendered him unable to prepare/submit habeas petition	State: records show periods of stability and competence; petitioner cannot show extraordinary circumstances or requisite diligence	Court: Affirmed—records show sufficient competence during the critical period; equitable tolling not warranted
Whether the district court was required to hold an evidentiary hearing on competence	Orthel: made allegations warranting further factual development/hearing (relies on precedent requiring hearing upon good-faith showing)	State: district court had an amply developed record (2,000+ pages) and did not abuse discretion in denying a hearing	Court: Affirmed—no abuse of discretion; Roberts permits no hearing when record is amply developed and does not indicate incompetence caused untimeliness

Bills v. Clark, 628 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2010) (two‑part test for tolling based on incompetence)
Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (equitable tolling requires diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
Summers v. Schriro, 481 F.3d 710 (9th Cir. 2007) (de novo review of AEDPA timeliness dismissal)
Roberts v. Marshall, 627 F.3d 768 (9th Cir. 2010) (no evidentiary hearing required when record is amply developed)
Roy v. Lampert, 465 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. 2006) (remand for hearing where record contained conflicting affidavits)
Laws v. Lamarque, 351 F.3d 919 (9th Cir. 2003) (remand where record was patently inadequate to assess tolling claim)
Anderson v. City of Bessemer, 470 U.S. 564 (1985) (clearly erroneous standard: permissible views of evidence)
Rasberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2006) (burden on petitioner to present diligence evidence)