Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-12-17165/USCOURTS-ca9-12-17165-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Klee Christopher Orthel
Appellant
James A. Yates
Appellee

Document Text:

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KLEE CHRISTOPHER ORTHEL,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

JAMES A. YATES, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 12-17165

D.C. No.

3:10-cv-03612-SI

OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Susan Y. Illston, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted

June 17, 2015—San Francisco, California

Filed July 28, 2015

Before: Michael Daly Hawkins, N. Randy Smith,

and Jacqueline H. Nguyen, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Hawkins

 Case: 12-17165, 07/28/2015, ID: 9624544, DktEntry: 79-1, Page 1 of 10
2 ORTHEL V. YATES

SUMMARY*

Habeas Corpus

The panel affirmed the district court’s order dismissing

California state prisoner Klee Christopher Orthel’s habeas

corpus petition as untimely.

The panel held that the district court did not clearly err in

finding that Orthel possessed sufficient mental competence to

understand the need to timely file a petition and to personally

prepare and effectuate a filing, and that the district court

therefore did not err in determining that Orthel did not

establish an exceptional circumstance that would warrant

equitable tolling of AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations.

The panel also held that the district court did not abuse its

discretion in deciding not to hold an evidentiary hearing. The

panel rejected Orthel’s contention that a petitioner is entitled

as a matter of law to an evidentiary hearing upon making a

prima facie showing that would, if true, entitle him to

equitable tolling.

COUNSEL

Noel J. Francisco, James M. Burnham (argued), Sarah A.

Hunger and Matthew R. McGuire, Jones Day, Washington,

D.C., Pro Bono Counsel for Petitioner-Appellant.

* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has

been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

 Case: 12-17165, 07/28/2015, ID: 9624544, DktEntry: 79-1, Page 2 of 10
ORTHEL V. YATES 3

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General of California, Gerald A.

Engler, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Peggy S. Ruffra

(argued), Supervising Deputy Attorney General, San

Francisco, California, for Respondent-Appellee.

OPINION

HAWKINS, Circuit Judge:

Petitioner-Appellant Klee Christopher Orthel (“Orthel”)

appeals an order of the district court granting RespondentAppellee Warden James A. Yates’s (“the State”) motion to

dismiss as untimely Orthel’s habeas petition. Orthel argues

he is entitled to equitable tolling of the Antiterrorism and

Effective Death PenaltyAct’s (“AEDPA”) one-year statute of

limitations due to mental incompetence. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 1995, Orthel was convicted of first-degree murder and

use of a firearm in violation of California Penal Code § 187. 

The trial court sentenced Orthel to twenty-nine years to life

in prison, and Orthel appealed. The California Court of

Appeal affirmed the conviction in 1998, and the California

Supreme Court denied review later that year.

Orthel sought no further relief until he filed a federal

habeas petition on August 17, 2010, in which he raised a

single claim of instructional error. The State moved to

dismiss the petition as untimely, citing the one-year AEDPA

bar, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Orthel opposed, arguing he was

entitled to equitable tolling of the one-year bar due to mental

incompetence. In support of his opposition, Orthel submitted

 Case: 12-17165, 07/28/2015, ID: 9624544, DktEntry: 79-1, Page 3 of 10
4 ORTHEL V. YATES

one nine-page document showing that Orthel had previously

been involuntarilymedicated. After reviewing that evidence,

the district court denied the State’s motion to dismiss. 

However, the district court also directed that Orthel provide

a complete copy of his mental health records to the State. 

After obtaining Orthel’s mental health records, the State filed

a renewed motion to dismiss and lodged Orthel’s entire

2,266-page medical record with the court.

After reviewing Orthel’s medical records, the district

court dismissed the petition as untimely, finding that Orthel

did not show an extraordinary circumstance or diligence as

required for equitable tolling. Specifically, the court found

“Petitioner’s medical records establish that he was a

sufficiently competent and capable individual to manage his

own affairs from June 1998 through 2005,” and “Petitioner’s

medical records during the relevant times show an eight year

period, starting in June 1998 and ending in 2006, when

petitioner was largely stable.” Orthel did not request an

evidentiary hearing, nor did the district court order one sua

sponte.

Orthel timely appealed the district court’s order, but his

counsel failed to appear at oral argument in October 2013. 

We subsequently ordered termination of Orthel’s counsel,

appointed pro bono counsel, and set a schedule for

replacement briefing. On appeal, we consider two questions: 

(1) whether the district court erred in determining that Orthel

is not entitled to equitable tolling; and (2) whether the district

 Case: 12-17165, 07/28/2015, ID: 9624544, DktEntry: 79-1, Page 4 of 10
ORTHEL V. YATES 5

court was obligated to order an evidentiary hearing to

evaluate Orthel’s claim.1

JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 2253. 

We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a petition

for habeas corpus as untimely under AEDPA’s statute of

limitations. Summers v. Schriro, 481 F.3d 710, 712 (9th Cir.

2007). We review the district court’s factual findings

pertaining to competency for clear error. Bills v. Clark,

628 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2010). A district court’s

decision to grant an evidentiary hearing to review the factual

basis of an equitable tolling argument is reviewed for abuse

of discretion. Roberts v. Marshall, 627 F.3d 768, 773 (9th

Cir. 2010).

ANALYSIS

I. Equitable Tolling for Mental Incompetence

A habeas petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling of

AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations if diligent pursuit of

rights and extraordinary circumstances standing in the way of

a timely filing can be shown. Bills, 628 F.3d at 1096 (quoting

Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 649 (2010)). 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

 

1 The district court granted a Certificate of Appealability as to the first

question, and we expand the Certificate of Appealability to include the

second. 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e).

 Case: 12-17165, 07/28/2015, ID: 9624544, DktEntry: 79-1, Page 5 of 10
6 ORTHEL V. YATES

personally to prepare a habeas petition and effectuate its

filing. Id. at 1099–1100; see also id. at n.2 (emphasizing the

disjunctive nature of test).

“[T]he petitioner must [also] show diligence in pursuing

the claims to the extent he could understand them, but that the

mental impairment made it impossible to meet the filing

deadline under the totality of the circumstances, including

reasonably available access to assistance.” Id. at 1100. 

Orthel argues that he satisfied Bills because he was unable to

understand the need to timely file and acted diligently given

the effect of the mental impairment on his capacity to

understand that need.

The district court did not clearly err in finding that Orthel

possessed sufficient mental competence to understand the

need to timely file a petition and to personally prepare and

effectuate a filing. Although Orthel grappled periodically

with significant mental health issues during his incarceration,

the voluminous medical and prison records show it was not

unreasonable for the district court to determine that Orthel

was capable of understanding the need to timely file and

effectuating a filing.

2

See Anderson v. City of Bessemer, 470

U.S. 564, 574 (1985) (“Where there are two permissible

views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice between them

cannot be clearly erroneous.”) (citations omitted).

2 Orthel’s contention that the district court erred in failing to consider the

entire record is unfounded. The court discussed a wide range of evidence

spanning 1997 to 2006 that included psychiatric observations, medication

history, and prison programming participation. Furthermore, the district

court denied the State’s initial motion to dismiss so that the parties could

review the extensive medical records, which were filed with the court.

 Case: 12-17165, 07/28/2015, ID: 9624544, DktEntry: 79-1, Page 6 of 10
ORTHEL V. YATES 7

Substantial evidence shows that Orthel possessed

sufficient competence and capability in the year following the

date on which the state court judgment became final (July

1998 to July 1999). In late June 1998, Orthel was described

as “fully alert and oriented” with “fairly good” insight and

judgment regarding his illness. On October 6, 1998, he was

described as responsive, clear, coherent, and high

functioning. On November 6, 1998, “his thought . . . process

was primarily clear, rational, and organized.” Thus, even if

we were to limit our inquiry to the year in which Orthel was

required to file a petition under AEDPA, the district court’s

findings were not clearly erroneous. Furthermore, the entire

eleven-year period (between the date on which the statute of

limitations began to run and the date on which Orthel filed his

petition) contained significant spans of time in which Orthel

participated productively in correspondence courses, collegelevel classes, and prison programming that required

substantial mental competence.3 Thus, the district court did

not err in determining that Orthel did not establish an

exceptional circumstance that would warrant equitable

tolling.

3 Given that we affirm the district court’s “competency” finding, we

need not determine whether Orthel showed diligence. See Bills, 628 F.3d

at 1099–1100 (petitioner must satisfy “two-part test”). Yet, we could also

affirm based on Orthel’s failure to make such a showing before the district

court, despite having the burden to do so. Rasberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d

1150, 1153 (9th Cir. 2006). In addition, Orthel is unable to satisfy this

prong because he cannot establish that his incompetence made it

“impossible to meet the filing deadline under the totality of the

circumstances, including reasonably available access to assistance.” Bills,

628 F.3d at 1100. Orthel’s participation in litigation in 2001 indicates that

counsel may have been reasonably available.

 Case: 12-17165, 07/28/2015, ID: 9624544, DktEntry: 79-1, Page 7 of 10
8 ORTHEL V. YATES

II. Evidentiary Hearing

“Where the record is amply developed, and where it

indicates that the petitioner’s mental incompetence was not so

severe as to cause the untimely filing of his habeas petition,

a district court is not obligated to hold evidentiary hearings to

further develop the factual record, notwithstanding a

petitioner’s allegations of mental incompetence.” Roberts,

627 F.3d at 773. Applying Roberts, the district court did not

abuse its discretion in deciding not to hold an evidentiary

hearing.

When the district court was presented with the State’s

initial motion to dismiss, the record had not yet been amply

developed as required by Roberts. Recognizing the

deficiency in the record, the district court requested

supplemental briefing, held a hearing on the motion, and

ultimately denied the motion to dismiss. The court then

directed Orthel to provide the State with a complete copy of

his medical and prison records, which the State subsequently

lodged with the court. At that point, the court had before it

more than 2000 pages of medical and prison records that very

strongly confirmed that—despite fluctuations in his mental

health—Orthel possessed sufficient competence duringmuch

of the eleven-year span to understand the need to file and

effectuate a filing. Only after reviewing the entirety of

Orthel’s records did the district court grant the State’s

renewed motion to dismiss. The district court’s actions

demonstrated sensitivity to the obligation to ensure that the

record is amply developed, pursuant to Roberts, and to make

a determination based on the “totality of the circumstances,”

as required by Bills.

 Case: 12-17165, 07/28/2015, ID: 9624544, DktEntry: 79-1, Page 8 of 10
ORTHEL V. YATES 9

Orthel contends that two other decisions from our court

establish a rule that a petitioner is entitled as a matter of law

to an evidentiary hearing upon making a prima facie showing

that would, if true, entitle him to equitable tolling. See Roy

v. Lampert, 465 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. 2006); Laws v. Lamarque,

351 F.3d 919 (9th Cir. 2003).4 Not so. Laws and Roy provide

a more nuanced rule that further factual development may be

required when a petitioner makes a good-faith allegation that

tolling is warranted, depending on the sufficiency of the

record that was before the district court. The two cases

contain seemingly broad mandatory language, but their

holdings and reasoning are fact-bound.

Accordingly, we stated in Roy that a “habeas petitioner

like Roy . . . should receive an evidentiary hearing when he

makes ‘a good-faith allegation that would, if true, entitle him

to equitable tolling,’” 465 F.3d at 969 (quoting Laws, 351

F.3d at 919), but justified the disposition based on the

record’s conflicting affidavits, id. at 975. Similarly, in Laws

we granted remand for further factual development “because

Laws has made a good-faith allegation that would, if true,

entitle him to equitable tolling,” but narrowly justified the

decision on the basis that the “record in this case is patently

inadequate . . . to allow us or any other court to evaluate the

strength of Laws’s claim.” 351 F.3d at 921, 924. In both

cases, the operative language discusses a particular petitioner

(rather than stating broad rules applying to all courts and all

4 Decided several days prior to Roberts, our decision in Bills did not

establish a standard for when a district court must hold an evidentiary

hearing or further develop the record for the purpose of assessing a claim

for equitable tolling, nor was the appeal decided on this basis. See Bills,

628 F.3d at 1095 (9th Cir. 2010) (noting district court held evidentiary

hearing and remanding for proper application of test for competency).

 Case: 12-17165, 07/28/2015, ID: 9624544, DktEntry: 79-1, Page 9 of 10
10 ORTHEL V. YATES

petitioners) and then elaborates the fact-specific rationale for

the disposition.

Roberts harmonizes these cases by comparing factual

contexts and providing a broad holding that when the record

“is amply developed” and does not indicate the mental

incompetence caused the untimely filing, a district court need

not hold evidentiary hearings to further develop the factual

record. 627 F.3d at 773. Thus, Roberts provides a recent

refinement of the parameters that guide when a district court

should hold an evidentiary hearing to evaluate the merits of

an argument for equitable tolling.

We decline Orthel’s suggestion that we adopt a simple

mandatory test requiring an evidentiary hearing whenever a

petitioner makes a non-frivolous showing. Here, unlike in

Laws and Roy, the district court had an amply developed

record full of relevant evidence allowing a well-supported

ruling concerning Orthel’s mental competence. Orthel did

not request a hearing to further develop the record, and the

court did not err in determining that it did not need to do so

sua sponte.

CONCLUSION

We affirm the dismissal of Orthel’s petition as untimely. 

There was no error in determining that Orthel did not

establish that he could not understand the need to file a timely

petition or effectuate a filing. Nor did the district court abuse

its discretion in reaching a decision absent an evidentiary

hearing.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 12-17165, 07/28/2015, ID: 9624544, DktEntry: 79-1, Page 10 of 10