NOT RECOMMENDED F OR F ULL-TEXT PUBLICATION F ile Nam e: 13a0009n.06 No. 11-5998 UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS F OR THE S IXTH CIRCUIT

MI CHAEL

ADAM CARNEAL , Petitioner-Appellant,

v. COOKI E CREW S, W arde n, Respondent-Appe llee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) On Appea l from the United States Di s trict Court for the Western District of Ke ntucky

Be fore : MARTI

N and B OGGS, Circuit J udg es; and COL L I ER, District J udg e. * PER CURI AM. Petitioner Michae l Carnea l appea ls from an orde r o f th e d is tric t court dismiss ing as untimely his petition for writ of habea s corpus. At ag e fourtee n, Carnea l killed three and wounded five of his classmates; his sole claim now is that he was not competent to plead g uilty , due to an undiag nosed mental illnes s . C ar n eal pled g uilty in 1998, but did not file for state postconviction relief until 2004 and did not file for fede ral habea s relief until 2009. Although conce ding that his petition was technica lly untimely under the one-y ear limit ations period of the Antiterror ism and Effe ctive Death Penalty Act, Carnea l argued for equitable tolling of the limit ations period on the basis of his paranoid sc hizophrenia, and statutory tolling duringthe pende ncy of his state petition. I n particula

r, Carnea l argued that his mental illness was undiag nosed and that thus his petition was

The Honora

ble Curtis L

. Colli er, United States District J udg e for th e E as t er n District of * Tenne ssee, sitting by

desig nation.No. 11-5998

Carneal v. Crews untimely beca

use, while his schizophrenia rema ined untrea ted, he was unable to disclose the nature of hi s p ar an oid delusional sy stem, fea ring retribution from the voices in his head. Only once his mental condition improved with medication many y ear s later was he able to talk to doctors and lawy ers about the full extent of his hallucinations. Finding that Carnea l had pre sented a colora ble claim for equitable tolling on the basis of mental illness, the district court held a wee k of evidentiar y hear ings involving testimony from Carnea l, his family , and medical experts. On the basis of reliable testimony from Carnea l’s treatin g p s yc h iatrists at the prison, the district court conclude d that Carnea l

was entitled to a period of equitable tolling, but not a period sufficie nt to rende r his petition timely

. I n addition, the d i s t ri ct court found t hat C arne al’s petiti on did not war rant statutory tolling, as his state petition was dismiss ed as untimely and thus it was not “prope rly filed” under AEDPA’s tolling require ments. Pace v. DiGuglielmo , 544 U.S. 408 (2005). Thus even if equitable tolling had been g rante d for the f

ull period reque sted, Carne al’s fe dera l petition would st ill have bee n untimely

. Having had the benef

it of oral argument and h av i n g car efully considere d the rec ord on appea l, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we are not persua ded that the district c ourt

err ed in dismissi ng Carnea l’s petition. Be cause the rea soning that supports dismiss al has been articulated by the district court in its well-re asoned and thoroug h opinion, the issuance of a detailed written opinion by this court would be duplicative and serve no useful purp o s e. According ly , the judgme nt of the district court is AF F IRMED upon the re asoning employ ed by that court in its opinion filed on J uly 12, 2011.

- 2 -