Testo completo
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL HUMPHREY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
KEN CLARK, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 10-55248
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-04035-GAF-
DTB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Gary A. Feess, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted December 3, 2012
Pasadena, California
Before: PREGERSON, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner-Appellant Michael Humphrey appeals the district court’s denial of
his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. Humphrey argues that he is entitled to equitable tolling
of the one-year AEDPA statute of limitations on the basis of his limited mental
FILED
DEC 19 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
Page 2 of 2
capacity. After the district court entered judgment in this case, we decided Bills v.
Clark, 628 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2010), which provides a framework for determining
whether a habeas petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of
limitations on the basis of a mental impairment. Because the district court did not
have the benefit of our decision in Bills, we vacate the judgment and remand to the
district court for reconsideration under the Bills framework.
VACATED and REMANDED.
-- 2 of 2 --
