Opinion ID: 171499
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Incompetence due to solitary confinement

Text: Vigil also argues that we should equitably toll the limitation period until 2007 because he has been held in solitary confinement for all but eight months of his incarceration, and was incompetent while he was so held. (Application at 4.) Vigil’s own explanation of his situation defeats this argument, as the eight-month span in which he was not in solitary confinement ran from November 28, 2002, through July 1, 2003. (Doc. 3 (habeas petition) at 10.) Yet he began filing his motions for post-conviction relief on October 25, 2006, when he was again in -8- solitary confinement. Clearly, then, being held in solitary confinement did not render Vigil incompetent to pursue habeas relief. Because Vigil has not shown extraordinary circumstances or due diligence related to his claims of incompetence, we deny a COA as to this issue. C. Denial of due process due to incompetence at time of conviction Because we conclude that the district court correctly dismissed Vigil’s habeas petition as procedurally barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), we do not reach this issue.