N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JAM ES DAVID OFELDT, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt,
v. NEVADA DEPARTM ENT OF C ORREC TIONS, Dire c tor; NEVADA ATTOR NEY GENER

AL, R

e sponde n t s - Appe lle e s . No. 14-15911 D.C . No. 3:10-c v-00646-LRHVPC
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Larry R . Hic ks, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d

M ay 13, 2015 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : O’ SC A

NNLAIN, IKUTA, a

nd N.R . SM ITH, C i rc uit Judge s. Ne va da sta te prisone r Jam e s Ofe ldt a p pe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s dismissa l of his untime l y

28 U.S.C . § 2254 ha

be a s pe tition. Ofe ldt a

rgue s tha t he wa s e ntitle d 

# F IL ED MAY15 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).to e q

uita b ly toll the tim e m a

ndate d to filehis a

ppe a l, be c a

use he suffe re d from

a se ve re m e nta l im

pa i rm e n t . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . §§ 1291 a nd 2253, a nd we a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision. The dism issa l of a

ha be a s pe tition a s tim e -barre d is re vie we d

de novo. Bills
v . C lark , 628 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th C ir. 2010). “A pe titione r se e king e quita ble tolling be ars the burde n of showing both tha t the re we re e xtra o rdina

ry c irc um s ta nc e s , a nd tha t the e xtra ordina

ry c irc um sta

nc e s we re the c auseof his untim e l ine ss.” Robe r ts v . Marshall, 627 F.3d 768, 772 (9th C ir. 2010) (inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d). Ofe ldt fa ile d to m e e t this burden. First, Ofe ldt fa ile d to pre se nt m e dic a l e vide n c e e sta blishing tha

t he suffe re d from a se ve re m e nta l im

p a irm e nt during the

re le va nt pe riod of tim e . Additionally , Ofe ldt’ s fre que nt filings in sta te c ourt be lie his a s se rtions tha t he wa s una

ware of,
and una ble to, pursue post-c onvic tion re lie f. B e twe e n 2005 a nd the filing of Ofe ldt’ s fe de ra l ha

be a s pe tition in 2010, Ofe ldt file d ove r fifty -five diffe re nt pro se doc um e nts inc luding docum e nts se e king ha be a s re lie f. Se e Gaston v
. Palme r , 417 F.3d 1030, 1035 (9th C ir. 2005) (c onc luding tha t “ [b] e c a use Ga ston wa s c a

pa ble of pre p aring a

nd filing sta

te c o urt pe titions [during the lim ita t ions pe riod] , it
a ppe ar[e d] tha

t he wa s c a

pa b le of pre pa

ring a nd filing a [fe de ra l] pe tition during the [sa m e tim e ] ” (a lte ration omitte d)). Thus, Ofe ldt fa ile d to ple a d spe c ific fa c ts
2de m onstra

ting he suffe re d from

a m e nta l illne ss “ so se ve re tha t . . . [he wa s] una

ble
rationa lly or fa c tua lly

to pe rsona lly

unde rsta nd the ne e d to tim e ly

file .” Bills , 628 F.3d at 1100. Se c ondly , Ofe ldt fa i le d to ple a d fa c ts de m onstra ting tha t his m e nta l illne ss

“ m a de it im

possibleunde r the tota lity of the c irc um sta

nc e s to m e e t the filing de a dline de spite [his] dilige nc e . ” Id. at 1093. Ofe ldt a rgue d his m e nta l illne ss c a use d his de la

y . Howe ve r, the re c ord indic ate s Ofe ldt untime ly file d his pe tition be c a use he wa s not a

w a re of som e c la im s he c o uld pursuein post-c o nvic tion re lie f. This la c k of a

ware ne ss doe s not e ntitleOfe ldt to e quita ble tolling. Se e Ford v
. Gonzale z , 683 F.3d 1230, 1235 (9th C ir. 2012) (“ T h e ‘ due dilige nc e ’ c loc k sta rts tic king whe n a

pe rson knows or through dilige nc e c ould disc ove r the vita l fa c ts, re ga rdle s s of whe n the ir le ga l signific anc e is a c tua lly disc ove re d .” ). AFFIRM E D
.

3