N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT R ODNEY B ER

NARD HALL, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt, v. R ANDY GR OUNDS, W arde n, R

e sponde nt - Appe lle e . No. 11-56135

D.C . No. 2:07-c v-02858-VAPAGR M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Virginia A. Phillips, District Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d August 7, 2014 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : WARDLAW , C ALLAHAN, a nd M . SM ITH, C i rc uit Judge s. C a lifornia sta te prisone r R odne y Ha ll a ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l of his 28 U.S.C . § 2254 ha be a s c orpus pe tition (Pe tition) a s untim e ly . The distric t c ourt c o nc l ude d tha t Ha l l fa ile d to m e e t his burden to de m o nstra te tha t 

# FIL E D SEP 02 2014 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 eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).his m e d ic a l c o nditions justify e quita ble tolling to exc use the late filing of the Pe tition. B e c a

use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with thefa c t s a

nd proc e dura l history

of this c a s e , we re pe at only

those fa c ts ne c e ssa

ry to re solve the issue s ra ise d on a ppe a l. W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt c orre c tly c onc lude d tha

t Ha ll did not me e t his burden to de m onstra

te tha t his m e dic a l c onditions justify e q uita ble tolling. Although Ha

ll’ s m e dic a l c onditions rende re d him inc a pa c ita t e d for som e portions of the re le va nt tim e pe riod, Ha ll did not show tha t his c onditions c a

use d the untim e line ss a

nd m a de it im

possibleto filethe Pe tition on tim e . Se ePorte r v . Ollison , 620 F.3d 952, 959 (9th C ir. 2010); S pitsyn v . Moore , 345 F.3d 796, 799 (9th C ir. 2003). Although the re c ord shows tha t Ha l l pe riodic a lly

e xpe rie n c e d

se ve re pa in tha

t inc a pa c ita te d him an d disrupte d

his da ily a c tivitie s, the re c ord doe s not show tha t Ha ll c ontinuously

e xpe rie n c e d suc h se ve re pa in. M ore ove r, the re are se ve ra l m onths during the

re le v a nt pe riod of tim e for whic h the re is no e vide nc e in the re c o rd of m e dic a l issue s, m uc h le ss m e d i c a l issue s tha t m a d e it im

possibleto file the Pe tition on tim

e . The re c ord re fle c ts tha t the re wa s a de q

uate tim e for Ha ll to tim e ly file the Pe tition, de spite his inc a p a c ita tion for 155 da

y s during there l e va

nt pe riod.

2Ac c ordingly , the distric t c ourt did not err in c o n c luding tha t Ha ll wa s not e ntitle d to e quita

ble tolling be c a

use he did not me e t

his burde n to show tha

t his m e dic a l c onditions were the c a use of the untim e ly

filing. Se e Porte r , 620 F.3d a t 959; Spitsyn , 345 F.3d a

t 799. 1 AFFIRM E D.

1 Ha ll re que sts tha

t the pa ne l ta ke judic ia l notic e of a dditional m e dic a l re c o rds c ove ring thepe riod from July to Nove m

be r 2006, a

nd e arly De c e m be r 2006 to April 2007. W

e de ny the re que st for judic ia l notic e a s m oot, in light of the distric t c o urt’ s August 5, 2014 orde r granting Ha ll’ s re que st for a sta te m e nt of position, a

nd its re vie w of thosem e dic a l re c ords. 3