N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JUAN GILB ER TO M EDR ANO, Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt,
v. SC OTT FR

AUENHEIM , W arde n, R e sponde nt-Appe lle e . No. 17-56305 D.C . No. 2:16-c v-08292-FFM
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Fre d e ric k F. M um

m , M a g istra

te Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 12, 2019 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : R

AW LINSON a

n d M UR GUIA, C i rc u it Judge s, a nd GILSTR

AP, ** Distric t Judge
. Jua n Gilbe rto M e drano (Pe titione r) a ppe a ls the de nia l of his fe de ra l ha be a s pe tition file d in Nove m

be r, 2016. 

# FIL ED
OCT 21 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

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

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

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble Ja m e s R odne y

Gilstra p, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Ea ste rn Distric t of Te xa s, sitting by de signa tion.In Nove m be r, 2015, Pe titione r file d his first sta te ha be a s pe tition. W

hile tha t pe tition wa s pe nding, a

fe w da y s la te r, Pe titione r file d a prote c tive fe d e ra l pe tition
a sse rting the sa

m e c la im s a s those in the sta te pe tition, a

n d m ove d for a Rhine

s 1 sta y . In De c e m

be r, 2015, thefe de ra l distric t c ourt sum m arily dism isse d the pe tition a nd de nie d the sta y re que st be c a

use a ll c la im s we re une xha uste d. Pe titione r’ s initia l sta

te pe tition wa s de nie d a s untim e ly and on the m e rits in April, 2016. Pe titione r’ s subse que nt sta te pe titions we re a lso unsuc c e ssful. On Nove m

be r 7, 2016, Pe titione r file d a se c o nd fe de ra l pe tition a sse rting the
now e xha uste d c la im s. He c onte nde d tha t he wa s e ntitle d to e quita ble tolling be c a use , inte r alia , he ha d lim ite d a c c e ss to the prison la w libra ry . The distric t
c ourt de nie d the se c ond fe de ra l pe tition a s untim e ly , finding tha t Pe titione r ra ise d
no va lid grounds for sta

tutory tolling, a nd tha t Pe t itione r wa s not e n t itle d to
e quita ble tolling be c a

use he fa ile d to de m onstra te tha t e xtra ordina

ry c irc um s ta

nc e s pre v e n te d him from

tim e ly filing his se c ond ha be a s pe tition. This C ourt re vie ws “ the tim e line ss of the fe de ra l ha b e a s pe tition de nov o .” Mc M o nagle v . Me y e r , 802 F.3d 1093, 1096 (9th C ir. 2015) (e n ba nc ) (c ita tion a nd
a lte ra tions omi tte d). B e c a use Pe titione r’ s c onvic tion be c a m e fina l on Fe brua ry 10, 2015, he ha d until Fe brua ry 10, 2016, to file

a tim e ly fe de ra l ha

be a s pe tition. Se e

1 Se e Rhine

s v . W e be r, 5 44 U.S. 269 (2005).

2id. a t 1097. The re fore , the Nove m b e r, 2016, pe tition wa s not tim e ly , a bse nt sta tutory

2 or e quita

ble tolling. Se e Espinoza-Matthe w s v . C a lifornia , 432 F.3d 1021, 1025 (9th C ir. 2005). “ To be e ntitle d to e quita b le tolling, a

ha be a s pe titione r
m ust de m onstra

t e two things: (1) tha

t he ha s be e n pursuing his rights dilige ntly , and (2) tha

t som e e xtra ordina

ry c irc um sta

nc e stood in his wa

y and pre ve nte d tim e ly filing. . . .” W

i lliams v . Filson , 908 F.3d 546, 558 (9th C ir. 2018) (c ita tion
and inte rna l quota

tion m a rks om itte d). On a ppe a l, Pe titione r argue s tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d in finding tha t Pe titione r’ s lim i te d a c c e s s to a libra ry wa s not a

n e xtra ordina

ry c irc um sta

nc e tha t
warra n te d e quita

ble tolling. Howe ve r, norm a l re stric tions on a prisone r’ s a c c e ss to the l aw libra

ry doe s not c onstitute

e xtra o rdina

ry c irc um sta

nc e s sta nding in the

wa y of tim e ly filing a fe de ra l pe tition. Se e Ramire z v . Yate s , 571 F.3d 993, 998 (9th C ir. 2009).

2 To the e xte nt tha

t Pe titione r c onte n ds tha

t he is e ntitle d to sta

tutory tolling, the d istric t c o urt did not e rr in finding tha t M e drano wa s ine l igible for sta tutory tolling. Pe titione r’ s first sta te pe tition wa s de nie d a s untim e l y , so it wa s not prope rly be fore the sta

t e c ourt to toll the

lim ita t ions pe riod. Se e Pac e v . DiGuglie lmo , 544 U.S. 408, 417 (2005). The filings of his third a

nd fourth sta

te pe titions a fte r the sta

tute of lim ita

tions e x pire d c ould not toll the running of a lim ita tions pe riod tha

t ha d a lre a dy

e xpire d. Se e Ford v . Gonzale z , 683 F.3d 1230, 1237 n.4 (9th C ir. 2012). 3W ithout ha ving pre se nte d the argum e nt to the distric t c ourt, 3 Pe titione r now
a sse rts a n a dditiona l ba sis for e quita ble tolling: tha

t the de n ia l of the Rhine

s sta y
re que s t in c onne c t ion with his 2015 fe d e ra l pe tition wa s e rrone ous unde r our Fe brua ry , 2016, de c ision, Me na v . Long , 813 F.3d 907 (9th C ir. 2016) (e xpla ining that a Rhine s sta y is a va ila ble for c om

p le te ly une xha u ste d pe titions). Ge ne ra lly , we c onside r argum e nts not ra ise d be fore the distric t c ourt wa ive d, unle ss one of the following e xc e ptions a pplie s: (1) the re are e xc e ptiona l c irc u m sta nces why the issue w a s n ot ra ise d in the tria l c ourt; (2) the ne w issue ar ise s while the a ppe a l is pe nding b ec a

use of a c ha

nge in the la

w ; or (3) the issue pre se nte d is pure ly one o f la w and the opposing p arty will s uffe r no pre judic e a s a re s ult of the fa ilure to ra ise the issue in the t ria l c ourt. Furthe r e xc e ption m ay be m a d e whe n pla in e rror ha s oc c urre d a

nd a n injustic e m ight othe rwise re s ult. Alle n v . Ornosk

i , 435 F.3d 946, 960 (9th C ir. 2006) (c ita t ions a nd inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d)

. None of the e xc e ptions provide s a via ble a ve n ue for us to re a c h the Me na issue . Pe titione r de sc ribe s no e xc e ptiona l c i rc um sta nc e s tha t pre ve nte d him

from
ra ising theissue be fore e ithe r distric t c ourt be low. Eve n if Me n a re p re se nte d a
c le ar c h an ge in the la

w, Me n a wa s not de c ide d while this a ppe a l wa s pe nding. The

3 Pe titione r ha s not m ove d for re c onside ra tion of the dism issa l of his 2015 pe tition a nd the de nia l of the Rhine s sta y re q ue st unde r Fe de ra l R

ule of C ivil Proc e d ure 60(b)(6). 4de te rm i na tion of whe the r an e xtra ordina ry c irc um sta

nc e e xists tha

t wa rrants
e quita ble tolling is “

highly fa c t-de pe n de nt,” Sossa v . Diaz , 729 F.3d 1225, 1229 (9th C ir. 2013), a s is the inquiry into whe the r Pe t itione r suffic ie ntly a lle ge d good
c a use to m e rit a sta

y . Se e K ing v . Ry an , 564 F.3d 1133, 1138 (9th C ir. 2009). Although wehave pre viously re c ogniz e d tha

t a distric t c ourt’ s e rrone ous dism issa l of a m ixe d pe tition is a

n e xtra ordina

ry c irc um sta

nc e for tolling purpose s, s e e J e ffe r son v . Budge , 419 F.3d 1013, 1016-17 (9th C ir. 2005), we have ne ve r done so for a c om ple t e ly une x ha u s te d pe tition, whe re the e quita ble tolling issue

wa s not pre s e nte d to the distric t c ourt. In a ny e ve nt, Pe t itione r ha s not de m onstra te d tha t the d istric t c o urt pla inly e rre d whe n it de nie d the re que st in 2015, be c a use the rule
artic ulate d in Me na wa s not “ c le ar or obvious.” Unite d State s v . Anguiano-Morfin , 713 F.3d 1208, 1211 (9th C ir. 2013). AFFIRM E D.

5Medrano v. Frauenheim , No. 17

- 56305 MURGUIA , Circuit Judge, dissenting: Because Medrano is entitled to equitable tolling, I would reverse. Adhering to Supreme Court guidance in Pace v. DiGuglielmo , 544 U.S. 408 (2005) , Medrano diligently filed a protective federal habeas petition before AEDPA’s one

- year limitations period ran. That protective petition, however, was improperly dismissed according to now

- controlling Circuit precedent. In Mena v. Long , 813 F.3d 907 (9th Cir. 2016)

— which was published after the denial of Medrano’s 2015 petition, but before the denial of his 2016 petition

— our court explained that a district court has discretion to grant a Rhines stay even if all claims in a petition are unexhausted. The u nwarranted dismissal of a petitioner’s earlier, timely filed federal habeas petition is an extraordinary circumstance that can support equitable tolling. Jefferson v. Budge , 419 F.3d 1013, 1017 (9th Cir. 2005). In light of Mena , we can conclude that the logic of Jefferson extends to the present context. At least two federal district courts in our Circuit agree. See Torres v. Sullivan , 2017 WL 2952925, *5 (C.D. Cal. May 25, 2017); Briggs v. California , 2017 WL 1806495, *3

– 5 (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2017). 

# FILED
OCT 21 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALSFurthermore, because the question of whether dismissal of a protective federal habeas petition pre

- Mena can constitute an extraordinary circumstance sufficient to warrant equitable tolling is “pure ly a question of law,” Allen v. Ornoski , 435 F.3d 946, 960 (9th Cir. 2006), we could have and should have addressed it for the first time on appeal
. I respectfully dissent.