
    Gregory L. DOWDY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ben CURRY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. Gregory L. Dowdy, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ben Curry, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    Nos. 10-17445, 14-15604.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 15, 2015.
    
    Filed Sept. 22, 2015.
    Gregory L. Dowdy, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
    Pamela Kay Critchfield, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    
      Before: CALLAHAN, CHRISTEN, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gregory Dowdy petitioned the district court for a writ of habeas corpus. The district court dismissed his petition as untimely and denied a later motion to set aside this denial. Dowdy appeals, arguing that he was entitled to equitable tolling because his mental illness prevented him from filing a timely petition. We affirm.

Dowdy has not satisfied the test for equitable tolling under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AED-PA”) because he has not shown that (1) his mental impairment was an “extraordinary circumstance” that rendered him unable to either “personally understand the need to timely file” or “personally to prepare a habeas petition and effectuate its filing” and (2) despite his “diligence in pursuing the claims to the extent he could understand them, ... the mental impairment made it impossible to meet the filing deadline.” Bills v. Clark, 628 F.3d 1092, 1099-1100 (9th Cir.2010) (citing Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 649, 130 S.Ct. 2549, 177 L.Ed.2d 130 (2010)).

As the district court found and the record supports, medication adequately controlled Dowdy’s mental impairment at least from 2002 to 2008. During this time, Dowdy’s Global Assessment Functioning (“GAF”) indicated only moderate symptoms of impairment, and Dowdy filed two state habeas petitions and another federal habeas petition.

AFFIRMED 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     
      
      . The parties are familiar with the facts, so we will not recount them here.
     