No Equitable Tolling for Foreign, Mentally Ill Prisoners
No Equitable Tolling for Foreign, Mentally Ill Prisoners
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that a non-English speaking mentally ill prisoner, housed in segregation at the time his petition was due, was not entitled to equitable tolling and dismissed his habeas corpus petition as untimely.
Yow Ming Yeh, who was serving time for battery for biting a jail guard, speaks very limited English and has a history of mental illness. In June 2010, more than two and a half years after the time limitations had expired, Yow Ming Yeh filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal court challenging his conviction. The district court quickly dismissed the petition as untimely.
Yeh, with the assistance of fellow prisoners, appealed to the Ninth Circuit, arguing he was entitled to equitable tolling based on his limited English and his mental impairment. Yeh also noted that he was in segregation during the period of time when his petition was due and had no idea what the rules about time limits were.
The Circuit Court first noted that equitable tolling is only available when the petitioner has diligently pursued his rights and where "extraordinary circumstances” prevented timely filing.
The court then found that a lack of English proficiency constitutes extraordinary circumstances only when the prisoner cannot produce his own legal materials or obtain translation assistance.
The court held that Yeh could produce his own legal filings, noting several state court appeals, and that Yeh did receive translation assistance during the relevant time period.
With regards to Yeh's mental impairment claim, the court again relied on his past administrative and judicial filings as evidence that his mental condition did not prevent him from seeking relief, and that he was aware of "basic legal concepts."
Finally, the court found that Yeh did not exercise diligence in pursuing his habeas petition. It noted that Yeh offered no explanation for the two-year delay, further noting that his petition was delayed for another nine months following his release from segregation.
The decision was not unanimous. The dissenting judge in this 2-1 opinion said that the majority erroneously looked at each of Yeh's allegations in isolation, and should have granted him an evidentiary hearing to further develop the record.
The dissent finally noted that the majority failed to consider the instructions in Forbess v. Franke, 749 F.3d 837 (9th Cir. Or. 2014), which held that a claim of equitable tolling must be guided by a "flexible, totality-of-the- circumstances approach."
The dissent said that based on the totality of the circumstances – Yeh's lack of English proficiency, segregation, and mental illness – it would find for Yow Ming Yeh. See: Yow Ming Yeh v. Martel, 751 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. Cal. 2014).
Related legal case
Yow Ming Yeh v. Martel
| Year | 2014 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 751 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. Cal. 2014) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Appeals Court Edition | F.3d |