Spencer Thomas Cato v. Derrick Yazel, Warden

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma dismissed Spencer Thomas Cato’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as barred by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s one-year statute of limitations. The court denied statutory and equitable tolling, rejected Cato’s actual-innocence argument, denied a certificate of appealability, and ordered substitution of Derrick Yazel as respondent.

Holdings

1. Because the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the remaining convictions on August 27, 2020, and Cato did not timely seek Supreme Court review, his conviction became final on January 25, 2021. The one-year federal habeas limitation period began on January 26, 2021 and expired on January 26, 2022; therefore, the petition filed on August 15, 2025 was untimely.
2. Section 2244(d)(1)(D) did not apply because Cato's asserted claim concerning the state post-conviction remedy did not challenge the judgment supporting his incarceration and therefore was not a cognizable federal habeas claim.
3. Cato was not entitled to statutory tolling under § 2244(d)(2). His pre-finality filings did not toll the limitations period, and his later filings were submitted after the one-year period had already expired.
4. Cato was not entitled to equitable tolling because he did not identify extraordinary circumstances beyond his control or establish a causal connection between any extraordinary circumstance and his failure to timely file the federal petition.
5. Cato did not satisfy the actual-innocence gateway because he presented no new reliable evidence demonstrating factual innocence and, at most, asserted legal innocence.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Cato's § 2254 petition was timely under the one-year limitation period in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A).
2. Whether Cato was entitled to a later limitations commencement date under § 2244(d)(1)(D) based on allegedly newly discovered evidence concerning prosecutorial misconduct.
3. Whether Cato was entitled to statutory tolling under § 2244(d)(2) for state-court filings.
4. Whether Cato was entitled to equitable tolling based on due diligence and extraordinary circumstances.
5. Whether Cato satisfied the actual-innocence gateway to excuse the AEDPA time bar.

Disposition

dismissed