Summary
In this unpublished Tenth Circuit case, the court denied a certificate of appealability (COA) to a state prisoner seeking habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, upholding the district court's dismissal of the petition as untimely under AEDPA's one-year statute of limitations (28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)). The court held that the petitioner's second state post-conviction motion was untimely and therefore not "properly filed," so it did not toll the limitation period, and his actual-innocence claim failed because he presented no new reliable evidence. Applying the Slack v. McDaniel standard, the court found no reasonable jurist could debate the correctness of the procedural ruling. Key topics include AEDPA statute of limitations, statutory and equitable tolling, properly filed state motions, and the actual-innocence gateway to overcome procedural default.
Holdings
- The district court's dismissal was correct because the petition was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) and no equitable tolling applies.
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court erred in dismissing Sellers's habeas petition as time-barred.
- Whether Sellers is entitled to equitable tolling based on actual innocence.
Disposition
dismissed
Cases Cited (6)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000)(followed)
- Gibson v. Klinger, 232 F.3d 799 (10th Cir. 2000)(followed)
- Locke v. Saffle, 237 F.3d 1269 (10th Cir. 2001)(followed)
- Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005)(followed)
- House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518 (2006)(followed)
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.