goldman was making in his decision was that because petitioner said that he was it made it more lingering admitted exaggerating mental illness to some degree that dr file your papers in court was because you didn't want to touch your wife you know i mean i didn't want to set my wife but i also didn't want the other inmates to know when i was in prison for i've told you that i mean that's it's hard to overcome that is to her credit that is truthful he's saying i mental illness was not so severe that it prevented him from judge is not finding is look he said that the reason that he didn't file was simply because he was afraid of other inmates finding out about this and therefore i declined to credit the idea that his mental  the question is whether his mental illness prevents him from managing his legal theories and acting on his legal rights and i think in this instance is mental illness is sufficiently severe to do that he was receiving a number of powerful anti psychotic thomas of you both have already commented on namely that i during the hearing petitioner testified admitted that the delay had nothing to do with his mental illness and everything to do with the fact clear it was unambiguous that he made a conscious decision that the that the people that he felt he wanted to get he would have wanted to get help for in preparing  petition he didn't want those people to know one of these key details it was a conscious decision that he made and neither that conscious decision nor the fear that prompted it constitutes an extraordinary external factor outside his control which the tele cage makes clear is required for equitable tone there is a second problem affairs and thus from understanding his legal rights and acting upon although dr anderson opined that petitioner suffered from a mental illness that interfered with his ability to file his state and federal petitions on a anderson's opinion to be unpersuasive the magistrate judge credited the testimony of the court reporter yolanda potter in a trial counsel that the prosecutor had offered him a plea bargain that would result in  that that did interfere with his filing the petition him if you would just had that testimony and the diff and that having taken the stand you might have a pretty tough time justifying  doctor's opinion was shown by means of cross examination to rest on a shaky foundation then the magistrate judge was entitled to reject it and that's essentially what he a person cannot manage as they call for the what not to the to the time in which the person could well if it could be shown if it could be demonstrated through persuasive expert testimony  along with all the surrounding circumstances that that there was a time period in which the petitioner was unable to manage his legal affairs because of a mental illness then fol might be appropriate during that time period the court would also have to consider what would then become the subsidiary issue of did the did the fisher in fact exercise due diligence during those periods when he was not so to say and i mean going going back to the facts of our case for a moment here  who is a lack of villagers you can also say that if an individual makes a conscious decision it that he doesn't want certain people to know certain things about his background or if he makes a conscious decision as doctoring understand explicitly recognize that he had to make the symptoms of mental illness exaggerate the symptoms of mental illness for purposes of constructing a more advantageous legal position to himself that in another itself demonstrates that he is capable of managing his legal  insufficient basis