UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT
PETER J. M UNOZ, Jr., Pe titione r - Appe lla nt,
v. GR EGOR

Y SM ITH, W arde n a

nd NEVADA ATTOR

NEY GENER

A L, R

e sponde n t s - Appe lle e s . No. 11-17904 D.C . No. 3:11-c v-00197-LRHR AM Distric t of Ne va da , R e no ORDER

B e fore : KOZINSKI, C hie f Judge , a nd O’ SC ANNLAIN a

n d N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s . The m e m orandum

disposition file d in this c a se on April 17, 2013 is withdra wn a nd re pla c e d by

the m e m orandum

disposition file d c onc urre ntly with this Orde r. Appe lla nt’ s pe tition for re he a

ring a nd re he aring e n ba

nc file d on M ay

1, 2013 is DENIED a s m oot. Subse que nt pe titions for re he aring or re he aring e n ba nc re spe c ting the ne w m e m orandum disposition m

a y be file d in a c c orda

nc e with Fe d. R . App. P. 35. 

# FIL ED SEP 18 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALSN O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
PETER J. M UNOZ, Jr., Pe titione r - Appe lla nt,
v. GR EGOR

Y SM ITH, W arde n a

nd NEVADA ATTOR

NEY GENER

A L, R

e sponde n t s - Appe lle e s . No. 11-17904 D.C . No. 3:11-c v-00197-LRHR AM
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 April 15, 2013 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : KOZINSKI, C hie f Judge , a nd O’ SC ANNLAIN a

n d N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s .

“ The dism issa l of a pe t ition for writ of ha be a s c orpus a s tim e -barre d is
re vie we d de novo.” Spitsyn v . Moore , 345 F.3d 796, 799 (9th C i r. 2003). W hile 

# FIL ED SEP 18 2013 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 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 ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).“ findings of fa c t m a de by the distric t c ourt a

re to be re vie w e d for c le ar e rror,” whe n, a s he re , “ the fa c ts unde rly ing [the ] c la im for e quita

ble tolling a

re undispute d, the que s tion of whe the r the sta tute of lim ita

t ions should be

e quita bly tolle d is a lso re vie we d de novo.” Id. Furthe r, a “ de c ision by

the distric t c ourt to de c line to orde r an e vide ntia ry he aring is re v ie we d

for a buse of disc re tion.” Roy

v . Lampe rt , 465 F.3d 964, 968 (9th C ir. 2006). A ha be a s pe t itione r is e ntitle d to e quita ble tolling of AEDPA’ s one -y e ar sta tute of lim ita

tions if heshows: “ (1) that he ha s be e n pursuing his rights dilige n tly , a

nd (2) tha t som e e xtra ordina

ry c irc um sta

nc e s stood in his wa

y and pre v e n te d tim e ly

filing.” H

olland v . Florida , 130 S. C t. 2549, 2562 (2010) (inte rna l quota

t ion m a rks om itte d). “ The dilige nc e re q uire d for e quita

ble tolling purpose s is re a sona

ble dilige nc e , not m a xim

um fe a s ible dilige nc e .” Id. a t 2565. (inte rna l c ita

tions omitte d). Furthe r, the c irc um s ta nc e s m u st be “ be y ond a prisone r’ s c ontrol” and a c tua l ly c ause the untim e ly filing, i.e ., “ m ake it impossible to file a pe tition on tim

e .” Ford v . Gonzale

z , 683 F.3d 1230, 1237 (9th C ir. 2012). Additiona lly , “ [a ] ha

be a s pe titione r . . . should re c e i ve an e vide ntia ry he aring whe n he m ake s ‘ a good-fa ith alle

gation that w

ould, if true , e ntitle him

to e quita ble tolling.’ ” Roy , 465 F.3d a t 969 (quoting Law

s v . Lamarque , 351 F.3d

2919, 921 (9th C ir. 2003)). In de te rm ining whe the r a pro se pe t itione r’ s a lle gations
warra n t a n e vide ntia

ry he aring, we libe ra lly

c o nstrue the a lle gat ions. Id. a t 970. M unoz ’ s a lle gat ions, if true , support a finding tha t he wa s dilige nt in pursuing his rights. Ac c o rding to his a lle gations, here pe at e dly

a tte m pte d to c onta c t his a ttorne y to inquirea

bout his c a se during thetim e that he wa s ignora nt tha t his sta te proc e e ding wa s ove r. Se e Porte r v . Ollison , 620 F.3d 952, 961 (9th C ir. 2010). He a lso c la im s he m a d e re pe ate d atte m pts to obtain the m a te ria ls he ne e de d to file his fe de ra l pe tition from the prison libra

ry . Ac c ordingly , M unozm ay have be e n dilige nt in pursuing his fe de ra l pe t ition a fte r le arning the sta te proc e e ding ha d
e nde d. It c annot be “ c onc l usive ly e sta blishe d” tha

t M unozwa s not diligent. Se e id.
a t 954. Ne xt, M unozc la im s tha

t he fa c e d at le a st one e xtra ordina ry c irc um sta

nc e that c ould ha ve c a use d his untime ly

filing: a n unre sponsive and m isle a ding
a ttorne y , a

n ina b ility to a c c e ss his c a se file s, a nd lim ite d a c c e ss to theprison la w libra ry . S e e e .g. , Holland

, 130 S. C t. at 2563 (a

ttorne y m isc onduc t

am o unting to
m ore tha n ne g lige nc e ); Ramire

z v . Yate s , 571 F.3d 993, 997–98 (9th C ir. 2009) (no
a c c e ss to file ); Roy , 465 F.3d a t 973–75 (no a c c e ss to thela w libra ry ); W hale m/Hunt v . Early , 233 F.3d 1146, 1148 (9th C ir. 2000) (e n ba nc ) (sam e ). On
re m and, the distric t c ourt should de te rm ine whe the r the se im pe d im e nts c onstitute d 3e xtra ordina

ry c irc um sta

nc e s a nd support the

c onc lusion tha

t M unoz ’ s untim e ly filing wa s c a

use d the re by
. Se e Porte r , 620 F.3d a t 961–62. For the se re a sons, the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision not to hold a n e v ide ntia

ry he aring, notwithsta

nding the se a lle gations, c o nstitute s an a b use of disc re tion. It is a lso worth noting tha t in dism i ssing Munoz ’ s pe t ition, the distric t c ourt
a ppa re ntly re lie d on the long-sta

nding rule tha

t a pe titione r ha s no c onstitutiona l right to e ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of sta te post-c onvic tion c ounse l. Se e C ole man v . Thompson , 501 U.S. 722, 756-57 (1991). This wa s e rror unde r H

olland , be c a use , if M unoz ’ s a lle gat ions a

bout his repe ate d, ignore d atte m pts to c onta c t his a

ttorne y are true , the y de m onstra

te both diligenc e and a

n e x tra ordina

ry c irc um sta

n c e
— w he the r or not the re wa s a

right to c ounse l is irre le va nt. Se e Holland 130 S. C t. at 2564-65. Thus, the distric t c ourt e rre d i nsom uc h a s C ole man inform e d its c onc l usion. Ultim a te ly , de t e rm ining theproprie t y of e quita

ble tolling re quire s a

“ fa c tspe c ific inquiry .” Spitsyn v . Moore , 345 F.3d 796, 799 (9th C ir. 2003). W hile the
e xisting re c ord sugge s ts tha t M unozwa s dilige nt a

nd tha t e xtra ordina

ry c irc um s ta nc e s c a use d his pe tition to be

untim e ly , it “ doe s not c le arly answe r that que stion.” Id. a t 802 ; se e also Porte r , 620 F.3d a t 960 (“ C onstruing Porte r’ s pro se ha be a s pe tition libera lly , and on the fa c ts supporte d by the subm ission pre se ntly be fore the c ourt, howe ve r, it c annot be c o nc lusive ly de te rm ine d

tha t Porte r is not 4e ntitle d to e quita ble tolling.” ). R e m an d is a ppropria t e , the re fore , “ be c a

use the distric t c o urt is in a

be tte r position to de

ve lop the fa c ts a

nd a sse ss the ir le ga l signific anc e in the first insta nc e .” W hale m/Hunt , 233 F.3d a

t 1148. On re m and, the distric t c o urt should hold a he aring a nd de te rm ine whe the r: (1) M unozdilige ntly pursue d his fe de ra l pe tition de spite his a l le ge d se tba c ks, a nd (2) whe the r the
a lle ge d e x tra ordina

ry c i rc um s ta

nc e s “ c a use d the untim e l ine ss of his filing a nd
m a de a tim e ly filing im possible .” Ramire

z v . Yate s , 571 F.3d 993, 998 (9th C ir. 2009). RE V E RSE D and RE M ANDE D
.

5