T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

Th e H o n o r ab l e O w e n M . Pa n n e r , Se n i o rD i s tr i c tJ u d g e f o rth e U . S. ** D i s tr i c tC ourtf

orO r e gon, P ort l a nd, s i tt i ng byde s i gna t i on.

NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T BR I AN KEI TH DENT, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. M IK E K N O W L E S , W ar den (A ), R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 08- 56730 D. C . No . 2 : 0 8 - c v - 0 5 2 5 5 - J F W- AN ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia J ohn F . W a l t e r , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d A ugus t1, 2011 P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B e f or e : R E I N H A R D T a nd B E R Z O N , C i r c ui tJ udge s , a nd P A N N E R , S e ni or D i stri ctJudg e. ** B rian K eith D en t, a C alifo rn ia state p riso n er , ap p ea ls th e d istrict co u rt’s de ni a l of hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2254 pe t i t i on a s t i m e - ba rr e d. W e r e ve r s e a nd r e m a nd f or f u rth e rp r o c e e d in g s . 

# FI LED AU G 24 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

N earl y f ou r y ears af

t erhi s c on vi ct i on beca m e f i nal , D entfi rs tsoug hthabeas r e l i e f i n s t a t e c ourt . O ve rthe ne xtf i ve y e ar s , D e ntunde rw e ntm ul t i pl e r ounds of s ta te h ab e a s r e v ie w . I n 2 0 0 8 , D e n t f ile daf e d e r a l h ab e a s p e titio n a lle g in g h is m e n ta l in c o m p e te n c e ju s tif ie d e q u itab le to llin g . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt s u a s p o n te di s m i s s e d the pe t i t i on a s t i m e - ba rr e d. T he di s m i s s a l of

ahabe a s pe t i t i on a s t i m e - ba rr e d i s r e vi e w e d de no vo . S p i t syn v. Mo o re , 345 F . 3d 796, 799 ( 9th C i r . 2003) . A di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de c i s i on not to c o n d u c t a n e v id e n tia ryh e a r in g is r e v ie w e df o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . R oy v. L a m p ert , 46 5 F . 3d 96 4, 96 8 (9 C i r. 20 06 ). th E q u itab le to llin g m a yto ll A E D P A ’s o n e - y e a rf ilin g d e a d lin e . H

ol lan d v. Flor i da , 13 0 S . C t . 25 49 , 25 60 (201 0). M ent al i ncom pet encyi s an “ extra ordi nary c i r c um s t a nc e be y ond the pr i s one r ’ s c ontr ol ” tha tm a yj us t i f ye qui t abl e t ol l i ng. L aw s v . L am arque , 35 1 F . 3d 91 9, 92 3 (9th C i r. 20 03 ) ( i nt ernal ci t at i on om i tt ed). D e ntdi d notha ve the bur de n of pe r s ua s i on a tthe e a r l ys t a ge of m e r e l yf i l i ng th e h ab e a s p e titio n . La ws , 351 F . 3d a t924. R a the r , a tthe f i l i ng s t a ge , the r e ne e d be o n ly“c ir c u m s ta n c e s c o n s is te n t w ith p e titio n e r ’s p e titio n . . . u n d e rw h ic h h e w o u ld b e e n title d to af

in d in g o f a n ‘im p e d im e n t’ u n d e r§ 2 2 4 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) ( B ) o rto e q u itab le t ol l i ng for f

urther f ac tual devel op m entt o b e r equi re d. ” Id . ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on3

m ark s an dci t at i o n o m i tt ed ). T h e co u rtco n stru es p ro se h ab eas fi l i n g s l i b eral l y. R oy , 465 F . 3d a t970. P r oc e e di ng p ro se , D entatt ac hed a sw orn d ec l ar at i on and rou gh l y 70 p ages of doc um e nt a t i on, i nc l udi ng m e di c a l r e c or ds , i n s upportof hi s pe t i t i on. D e nt i nc l ude d aps y c hol ogi s t ’ s r e ports t a t i ng D e nt ’ s I Q of 56 pl a c e d D e nti n “ the M e nt a l l yR e t a r de d r a nge of i nt e l l e c tua l abi l i ty . ” D e nts ubm i tt e d aN ove m be r11, 1999 pr ogr e s s not e w r i tt e n byaD e pa rtm e ntof C orr e c t i ons ps y c hi a tr i s ts t a t i ng: O n m e nt a l s t a tus e xa m i na t i on he i s ba r e l yor i e nt e d. H e doe s notknow th e y e a ro rth e d a te o rth e d a yo f th e w e e k . H e c a n n o t m a k e s im p le c h a n g e ; $ 1 .6 5 f

r o m $ 2 .0 0 is $ .8 7 . H e is u n ab le to d e a l w ith si m i l ari t i es o r ab stract i o n s. H e can n o td o th ree d i m en si o n al fi g u res. Hi s j u d g m e n ti s i m p a i r e d . He h a s s o m e i n s i g h t . Hi s a f f e c ti s f l a t . He h a s c o m m a n d h a llu c in a tio n s te llin g h im to d o th in g s . T h e v o ic e s ta lk aboutm e , he s a y s . H i s m e m oryi s c l e a r l yi m pa i r e d. H e c a nnot re m em ber any of four i t em s i n fi ve m i nu t es . H e i s s ee n t o b e an organi c m oo d d i sorderse cond ary t o b ra i n i nj ury w i th d em ent i a. C ons i de r i ng D e ntpr oc e e de d p ro se , the m edi ca l re cords and un cont es t ed decl ar at i on s D entsubm i tt ed const i tut e ago od -f ai th sho w i ng of m ent al in c o m p e te n c e r e q u ir in g th e d is tr ic t c o u rt to f u rth e rd e v e lo p th e r e c o r d . La ws , 351 F .3 da t 9 2 4 . I n di s m i s s i ng D e nt ’ s pe t i t i on, the di s tr i c tc ourtnot e d aM a r c h 30, 1998 c o u rt- o r d e r e d c o m p e te n c ye v a lu a tio n c o n c lu d e dD e n t w a s m a lin g e r in g . D e n t, h o w e v e r , r e q u e s te d e q u itab le to llin g b e g in n in g in N o v e m b e r1 9 9 9 . E s p e c ia lly4

c ons i de r i ng D e ntpr oc e e de d p ro se , the re sul tof D ent ’ s e ar l y 199 8 com pet ency e x a m in a tio n h a s little b e a r in g o n D e n t’s c o m p e te n c yo v e r1 8 m o n th s la te r . La ws , 3 5 1 F . 3 dat9 2 3 . T h e d i stri ctco u rtal so co n cl u d ed th atb ecau se D en th ad n o case p e n d in g p r io rto 2 0 0 3 , D e n t w a s n o t e n title dto e q u itab le to llin g . T h e e q u itab le t o l l i n g d et erm i n at i o n , h o w ev er, d o es n o td ep en do n w h eth er a p et i t i o n er h as a c l a i m pe ndi ng. F i na l l y , D e ntc oul d be e nt i t l e d t o s t a tut oryt ol l i ng dur i ng hi s s ubs e que nt r o u n d s o f

s ta te h ab e a s p r o c e e d in g s . 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 2 ( d ) ( 2 ) . D e n t’s a d d itio n a l s ta te pr oc e e di ngs , c om bi ne d w i th the e qui t abl e t ol l i ng de t e rm i na t i on, a r e r e l e va ntt o the f e d e r a l s ta tu to ryto llin g is s u e . Se e E v a n s v . Ch a v is , 546 U . S . 189, 199- 200 ( 2006) ( C a lif o rn ia ’s “r e a s o n ab le tim e ” h ab e a s s ta n d a r dr e q u ir e s f e d e r a l c o u rts to det erm i ne w hether pet i t i on er ’ s f i l i ng del ay s w er e r ea sonabl e, and thu s t i m el y) . T he di stri ctcourterre d i n p l ac i ng the bu rden of persuas i on on a p ro se p e titio n e ra t th e p le a d in g s ta g e o f ah ab e a s p e titio n . La ws , 351 F . 3d a t924. B e c aus e D e nt , pr oc e e di ng p ro se , m ade ago od -f ai th al l egat i on thatw ou l d, i f true, en t i t l e h i m t o eq u i t ab l e t o l l i n g , th e d i stri ctco u rtab u sed i t s d i scret i o n b y s u a s p o n te d is m is s in g th e p e titio n p r io rto f u rth e rd e v e lo p in g th e f

a c tu a l r e c o r d . I

d. a t923- 24 ( r e m a ndi ng f

orthe di s tr i c tc ourtt o “ or de rs uc h di s c ove ry , e xpa ns i on of the r e c or d, ore vi de nt i a ryhe a r i ng a s i s ne c e s s a ryt o de t e rm i ne how m uc h, i f a ny , ” of the5

re l evantperi od shou l d b e e qu i t abl y t ol l ed du e t o p et i t i on er ’ s m ent al in c o m p e te n c e ) . D e n t’s c o u rt- ap p o in te dc o u n s e l w ill c o n tin u e to r e p r e s e n t D e n t in the di s tr i c tc ourton r e m a nd. R EVER SED A N D R EM A N D ED .