Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01817/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01817-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY BRIAN PORTEOUS,

Petitioner,

v.

RAY FISHER, JR., Warden,,

Respondent.

No. 2:15-cv-1817 GEB KJN P

ORDER

Petitioner is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel. On October 29, 2015, 

respondent filed a motion to dismiss this action on the grounds that it is barred by the statute of 

limitations because it was filed over seventeen years too late.1Petitioner now seeks an extension 

of time to oppose the motion, as well as appointment of counsel.

There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. 

See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A 

authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case “if the interests of justice so 

require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. 

////

 

1

 Court records reflect that petitioner previously filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus 

on February 29, 2000. Porteous v. People of the State of California, Case No. 2:00-cv-0431 GEB 

DAD (E.D. Cal.). On July 20, 2000, this prior action was dismissed based on petitioner’s failure 

to exhaust his state court remedies. Id. 

Case 2:15-cv-01817-GEB-KJN Document 16 Filed 12/08/15 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Petitioner was convicted on May 31, 1996. Thus, in his opposition to the motion to 

dismiss, he must demonstrate that he is entitled to equitable tolling. In his petition, petitioner 

alleges that his mental health is unstable, and that he has been on “some type of psychiatric 

medication” since he was initially incarcerated. (ECF No. 1 at 39.) Petitioner now claims that he 

is bi-polar, and suffers from manic depression and PTSD. (ECF No. 15 at 4.) 

Mental incompetency can, in certain circumstances, rise to the level of an “extraordinary 

circumstance” beyond a petitioner’s control that warrants equitable tolling. Laws v. Lamarque, 

351 F.3d 919, 923 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Calderon v. United States Dist. Ct. (Kelly), 163 F.3d 

530 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc) (represented petitioner’s mental incompetency rendered him unable 

to assist his attorney in the preparation of the petition). However, equitable tolling based on 

mental incompetence is limited to the extraordinary circumstance of complete “mental 

incapacity.” Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327, 337 (2007). The Ninth Circuit has held that 

equitable tolling is permissible when a petitioner can show mental impairment so severe that he 

was (1) unable to personally understand the need to either timely file or prepare a petition and (2) 

that the impairment made it impossible under the totality of the circumstances to meet the filing 

deadline, whether of his own accord or with assistance, despite due diligence. Bills v. Clark, 628 

F.3d 1092, 1099-1100 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Orthel v. Yates, 795 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2015) (“A 

petitioner seeking equitable tolling on the grounds of mental incompetence must show 

extraordinary circumstances, such as an inability to rationally or factually personally understand 

the need to timely file, or a mental state rendering an inability personally to prepare a habeas 

petition and effectuate its filing.”).

In his request, petitioner alleges that his numerous psychologists will have to testify 

concerning his mental health throughout his incarceration. (ECF No. 15 at 5.) However, the 

court has not yet determined that such hearing is required. Petitioner must first show that he 

suffered a severe mental impairment, which he can accomplish by providing mental health 

records that so demonstrate. But petitioner must also demonstrate how such mental impairment 

affected his ability to diligently meet the filing deadline. As petitioner concedes in his petition, 

the petition was filed almost 20 years after he was convicted. (ECF No. 1 at 40.) 

Case 2:15-cv-01817-GEB-KJN Document 16 Filed 12/08/15 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by 

the appointment of counsel at the present time. However, petitioner is granted an extension of 

time in which to oppose the motion to dismiss. Petitioner is cautioned that failure to oppose the

motion may result in the dismissal of this action. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 15) is denied without 

prejudice; 

2. Petitioner’s motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 13) is granted; and

3. Petitioner shall file and serve his opposition to the motion within thirty days from the 

date of this order. 

Dated: December 8, 2015

port1817.110+111

Case 2:15-cv-01817-GEB-KJN Document 16 Filed 12/08/15 Page 3 of 3