Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-14-07086/USCOURTS-ca10-14-07086-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

February 25, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

MILTON D. GRAYSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

TRACY McCOLLUM, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

No. 14-7086

(D.C. No. 6:13-CV-0422-RAW-KEW) 

(E.D. Oklahoma)

ORDER

Before GORSUCH, McKAY, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.

This appeal involves the timeliness of a habeas petition. The petitioner is

Mr. Milton Grayson, who was convicted in state court of first degree rape by force

or fear, first degree burglary, and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. 

Under federal law, a federal habeas petition must ordinarily be filed within one

year of the date that the conviction became final. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A).1

 Mr.

Grayson waited more than a year to file the habeas petition, and the district court

ordered dismissal based on timeliness. Mr. Grayson seeks to appeal, arguing that

the statute of limitations does not apply because he is actually innocent. To

appeal, Mr. Grayson needs a certificate of appealability. See Clark v. Oklahoma,

1 Exceptions exist, but none apply here. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(B)-(D).

Appellate Case: 14-7086 Document: 01019390270 Date Filed: 02/25/2015 Page: 1 
468 F.3d 711, 713 (10th Cir. 2006). We decline to issue the certificate and

dismiss the appeal.

For a certificate of appealability, Mr. Grayson must show that reasonable

jurists could debate the correctness of the district court’s ruling on timeliness. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000). Mr. Grayson fails to make this

showing. He does not deny that he waited more than a year to file the habeas

petition. Instead, he argues that he is actually innocent of the charges. 

Petitioners can avoid the statute of limitations based on presentation of new

evidence showing that it is more likely that no reasonable juror would have found

guilt. McQuiggin v. Perkins, ___ U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 1924, 1935 (2013). But,

Mr. Grayson did not present the district court with any new evidence of innocence. 

As a result, the district court concluded that Mr. Grayson had failed to satisfy his

burden of proving actual innocence. This conclusion is not reasonably debatable

in the absence of new evidence of innocence. As a result, we decline to issue a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Entered for the Court

Robert E. Bacharach

Circuit Judge

-2-

Appellate Case: 14-7086 Document: 01019390270 Date Filed: 02/25/2015 Page: 2