Case ID: f-appx_510/html/0574-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Dennis Ray BARNETT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Vimal SINGH, Warden, Respondent-Appellee, and California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; California Medical Facility, at Solano County, Respondents.
    No. 10-15867.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Feb. 11, 2013.
    Filed Feb. 22, 2013.
    Cynthia Lie, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Jose, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Gregory A. Ott, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    
      Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Dennis Ray Barnett appeals the district court’s dismissal of his habeas corpus petition challenging his conviction for robbery and assault with a deadly weapon. The district court dismissed the petition as untimely because it was filed more than a year after the expiration of the state court proceedings. The district court rejected Barnett’s contentions that he was entitled to equitable tolling due to his mental illness, cognitive deficits, and inability to obtain legal materials from his attorney despite alleged diligent efforts.

After the district court decided his case, this court issued its opinion in Bills v. Clark, 628 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir.2010). In Bills, we announced a framework for analyzing equitable tolling claims asserted on grounds similar to those advanced by Barnett. That inquiry is fact specific and contemplates a broader inquiry into the relationship between the petitioner’s mental problems and the failure to timely file the habeas petition. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the district court for consideration under the Bills framework.

VACATED and REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.