34.810(2). Appellant's petition was procedurally barred absent a demonstration of good cause and actual prejudice. See NRS 34.726(1), NRS 34.810(3).

Appellant first claimed he had good cause due to lack of access to Nevada legal materials because he is currently incarcerated in Montana. Appellant has filed multiple proper person documents in the district court over the course of his incarceration in Montana. Therefore, he failed to demonstrate that any lack of access to Nevada legal materials should excuse the delay in filing this petition or prevented the timely filing of a petition. Hathaway v. State, 119 Nev. 248, 252, 71 P.3d 503, 506 (2003).

Second, appellant claimed he had good cause due to mental illness and lack of legal knowledge. This failed to demonstrate good cause for filing an untimely post-conviction petition. See Phelps v. Dir., Nev. Dep't of Prisons, 104 Nev. 656, 660, 764 P.2d 1303, 1306 (1988) (holding that petitioner's claim of organic brain damage, borderline mental retardation, and reliance on the assistance of an inmate law clerk unschooled in the law did not constitute good cause for the filing of a successive post-conviction petition). Moreover, appellant did not demonstrate his mental illness should excuse the entire delay. Appellant stated he received mental health treatment and prescription medication at the Montana prison, which was insufficient to demonstrate that he has

. . . continued Deavila v. State, Docket No. 42519 (Order Dismissing Appeal, January 27, 2004).

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A been incompetent throughout his incarceration or prior to entry of his plea. See Melchor-Gloria v. State, 99 Nev. 174, 179-80, 660 P.2d 109, 113 (1983) (citing Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 402 (1960)).

Therefore, the district court did not err in denying the petition as procedurally barred. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 4

J.

Hardesty

cc: Hon. Jessie Elizabeth Walsh, District Judge Rodney Pat Deavila Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

4We have reviewed all documents that appellant has submitted in proper person to the clerk of this court in this matter, and we conclude that no relief based upon those submissions is warranted. To the extent that appellant has attempted to present claims or facts in those submissions which were not previously presented in the proceedings below, we have declined to consider them in the first instance.