Roberts v. Marshall
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 25367
| 9th Cir. | 2010Background
- Roberts pled guilty to second degree murder in California; sentenced to 15 years to life.
- He did not appeal; constructively filed multiple habeas petitions in state courts between 2002–2007.
- Federal petition for habeas corpus was filed in 2007 alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.
- Medical records show Roberts used psychotropic meds for psychotic depression, but mental status often described as good/normal.
- District court dismissed as untimely under AEDPA; no statutory tolling; Roberts sought equitable tolling based on mental incompetence.
- Panel granted certificate of appealability on whether equitable tolling due to mental incompetence was properly denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mental incompetence can support equitable tolling | Roberts contends Laws applies; alleged mental impairment warranted tolling. | Court distinguishes Laws; records show normal mental functioning; no tolling caused untimeliness. | Not entitled to evidentiary hearing; no tolling. |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing was required | Verified pleadings alone justify an evidentiary hearing under Laws. | Extensive medical records negate severe incompetence; hearing unnecessary. | No evidentiary hearing necessary. |
| Whether Roberts demonstrates extraordinary circumstances caused untimeliness | Mental incompetence is extraordinary and caused delay. | Medical records show capable functioning; delay not caused by incompetence. | Roberts fails to prove a causal link to untimeliness. |
| Whether district court abused discretion in denying tolling | The district court should have developed the record further. | Record was sufficiently developed; further hearings unnecessary. | No abuse; denial affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Laws v. Lamarque, 351 F.3d 919 (9th Cir. 2003) (mental incompetence can be extraordinary circumstance for tolling)
- Roy v. Lampert, 465 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. 2006) (evidentiary hearing warranted when good-faith allegation could entitle to tolling)
- Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (Supreme Court 2005) (two-element test for equitable tolling: diligence and extraordinary circumstance)
- Rasberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2006) (recognizes equitable tolling for timely pursuit of rights)
- Gaston v. Palmer, 417 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2005) (court may look at petitioner's ability to file during limitations period)