Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-03-06327/USCOURTS-ca10-03-06327-0/pdf.json

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

---

F I LED 

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 19 2004 

TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

DAVID A. CIEMP A, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

No. 03-6327 

v. (Western District of Oklahoma) 

(D.C. No. 03-CV-613-L) 

RANDALL G. WORKMAN, Warden, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

ORDER 

Before EBEL, MURPHY, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges. 

Proceeding pro se, state prisoner David A. Ciempa seeks a certificate of 

appealability ("COA") so he can appeal the district court's denial of the habeas 

petition he filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) 

(providing that no appeal may be taken from a final order disposing of a § 2254 

petition unless the petitioner first obtains a COA). On May 21, 1999, Ciempa 

entered guilty pleas in four cases pending in Oklahoma County District Court. 

Ciempa did not attempt to withdraw his guilty pleas or otherwise directly appeal 

his convictions. He did, however, file a state post-conviction application on 

October 7, 2002. That application was denied on April 10,2003. 

Appellate Case: 03-6327 Document: 01018105035 Date Filed: 05/19/2004 Page: 1 
Ciempa filed the instant § 2254 petition on May 6, 2003. In the petition, 

Ciempa asserted multiple ineffective assistance of counsel claims, a claim that his 

guilty pleas were not made knowingly and voluntarily, and a claim that his due 

process rights were violated when prior state convictions were used to enhance 

his sentence. On June 13,2003, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss Ciempa's § 

2254 petition as untimely. The matter was referred to a magistrate judge who 

recommended that Respondent's motion be granted. Ciempa filed timely 

objections to the magistrate's recommendation and those objections were 

considered by the district court. The court, however, granted Respondent's 

motion and dismissed Ciempa's § 2254 petition as untimely. 

Ciempa's convictions became final on June 1, 1999, when the ten-day 

period within which he could withdraw his guilty pleas expired. Ciempa had one 

year from that date to file his § 2254 petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). His 

petition, however, was not filed until May 6, 2003. Further, the one-year period 

was not tolled while Ciempa pursued state post-conviction relief because he did 

not seek any such relief until October 7, 2002, long after the one-year period of 

limitation had expired. 28 U.S. § 2244(d)(2). 

The district court concluded that Ciempa was not entitled to equitable 

tolling ofthe limitations period because he failed to diligently pursue his claims 

and failed to demonstrate that his failure to file a timely petition was caused by 

-2­

Appellate Case: 03-6327 Document: 01018105035 Date Filed: 05/19/2004 Page: 2 
extraordinary circumstances beyond his control. See Marsh v. Soares, 223 F.3d 

1217, 1220 (lOth Cir. 2000). The court specifically ruled that the legal and 

factual predicates of the claims Ciempa presented in his § 2254 petition were 

discoverable at the time of his sentencing and that ignorance of the law did not 

excuse his failure to file his petition in a timely manner. See id. 

In the brief Ciempa filed with this court, he asserts, inter alia, that he is 

entitled to equitable tolling because he is actually innocent of the sentence he 

received. See Gibson v. Klinger, 232 F .3d 799, 808 (IOth Cir. 2000) (holding that 

equitable tolling may be appropriate when "a prisoner is actually innocent"). 

Specifically, he alleges that two prior offenses were improperly used to enhance 

his sentence because the sentences he received for those prior offenses were 

suspended. Thus, he argues, he did not commit the instant offenses within ten 

years of the date following the completion of the execution of the sentences for 

the prior 'offenses. See Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 51.1. Because Ciempa's argument 

relates to legal innocence, not actual innocence, it is insufficient to support his 

request for equitable tolling. See Selsor v. Kaiser, 22 F.3d 1029, 1036 (lOth Cir 

1994). 

To be entitled to a COA, Ciempa must show "that jurists of reason would 

find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling." 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 474, 484-85 (2000) (holding that when a district 

-3­

Appellate Case: 03-6327 Document: 01018105035 Date Filed: 05/19/2004 Page: 3 
court dismisses a habeas petition on procedural grounds, a petitioner is entitled to 

a COA only if he shows both that reasonable jurists would find it debatable 

whether he had stated a valid constitutional claim and debatable whether the 

district court's procedural ruling was correct). Our review of the record 

demonstrates that the district court's dismissal of Ciempa's § 2254 petition as 

untimely is not deserving of further proceedings or subject to a different 

resolution on appeal. Accordingly, we deny Ciempa's request for a COA and 

dismiss this appeal. Ciempa's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is 

granted. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Michael R. Murphy 

Circuit Judge 

-4­

Appellate Case: 03-6327 Document: 01018105035 Date Filed: 05/19/2004 Page: 4