John Flowers v. JACK PALMER, Warden; NEVADA ATTORNEY GENERAL

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN FLOWERS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JACK PALMER, Warden; NEVADA
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 12-16234
D.C. No. 3:10-cv-00367-ECR-
VPC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Edward C. Reed, Jr., Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted December 9, 2014
San Francisco, California
Before: KOZINSKI, RAWLINSON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner John Flowers (Flowers) challenges the district court’s dismissal of
his untimely federal habeas petition pursuant to the one-year statute of limitations
set forth in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. We affirm.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

-- 1 of 3 --

1. The district court properly held that equitable tolling based on
Flowers’ mental impairment and the effects of his medications was unwarranted
because Flowers did not demonstrate diligence in pursuing his federal habeas
petition. See Bills v. Clark, 628 F.3d 1092, 1099-1100 (9th Cir. 2010). Flowers,
personally or with the assistance of others, repeatedly filed habeas petitions in state
court during the relevant time period. See Stancle v. Clay, 692 F.3d 948, 952, 959-
60 (9th Cir. 2012) (denying equitable tolling because the petitioner received
“continual assistance” from another inmate to file petitions); see also Gaston v.
Palmer, 417 F.3d 1030, 1034-35 (9th Cir. 2005).
2. The district court properly held that the alleged restrictions on
Flowers’ access to legal materials during his housing in the mental health unit
and/or his transfer to Oklahoma did not constitute extraordinary circumstances that
caused his failure to timely file. See Yeh v. Martel, 751 F.3d 1075, 1077 (9th Cir.
2014). Because Flowers filed numerous state pleadings and one federal petition
during the relevant time period, the alleged restrictions he experienced did not
prevent timely filing. See Ramirez v. Yates, 571 F.3d 993, 998 (9th Cir. 2009).
2

-- 2 of 3 --

3. The district court properly held that Flowers is not entitled to
equitable tolling on the basis of actual innocence because he failed to satisfy the
standard articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Schlup v. Delo, 513
U.S. 298, 327 (1995). See Larsen v. Soto, 742 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2013), as
amended (noting that under Schlup a petitioner must show that “it is more likely
than not that no reasonable juror would have found [him] guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --