benefit system suggested that the statute should be applied compassionately. Id. at 1368 (“to read the legislative history of section 7266 as requiring ruthless application of the time limit is somewhat arbitrary”). While the government agrees that section 7266(a) is subject to equitable tolling, it directs us to language indicating that such tolling is allowed in only two limited situations: (1) where “the claimant has actively pursued his judicial remedies by filing a defective pleading during the statutory peri 6) (finding that 29 U.S.C. § 791 may be tolled “if the plaintiff because of disability, irremediable lack of information, or other circumstances beyond his control just cannot reasonably be expected to sue in time”); Stoll v. Runyon, 165 F.3d 1238, 1242 (9th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); Smith-Haynie v. Dist. of Columbia, 155 F.3d
holding that pro se status does not in itself constitute an extraordinary circumstance meriting tolling holding that attorneys mental illness may justify equitable tolling holding that mental incapacity is an extraordinary circumstance that may warrant equitable tolling holding that 26 usc  6511 may not be equitably tolled but that mental incapacity is a grounds for tolling when available holding that equitable tolling under  2255 would be allowed if at all only for extraordinary circumstances