Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-06058/USCOURTS-ca10-16-06058-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

DARRELL LEE COOTS, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

v. 

JOE M. ALLBAUGH, Interim Director of 

the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, 

 Respondent - Appellee. 

No. 16-6058 

(D.C. No. 5:13-CV-00835-M) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

 ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

Before LUCERO, MATHESON, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges. 

 Darrell Lee Coots, a state prisoner proceeding pro se,1

 seeks to appeal from the 

denial of his motions to extend or reopen the time to appeal the denial of his application 

for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. As we explain below, Mr. Coots 

must obtain a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to pursue this appeal. Exercising 

 

* This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the 

case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive 

value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

1

 Because Mr. Coots proceeds pro se, we construe his filings liberally. See 

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam); see also United States v. 

Pinson, 584 F.3d 972, 975 (10th Cir. 2009) (“[W]e must construe [a pro se litigant’s] 

arguments liberally; this rule of liberal construction stops, however, at the point at which 

we begin to serve as his advocate.”). 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

July 11, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-6058 Document: 01019654332 Date Filed: 07/11/2016 Page: 1 
- 2 - 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we deny a COA. We also deny his request to 

proceed in forma pauperis. 

I. BACKGROUND 

Mr. Coots filed an application for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in 

the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. The district court 

denied Mr. Coots’s application on the merits and entered final judgment on January 21, 

2014 . On June 4, 2015, Mr. Coots filed a “Motion for Clarification/Extension to 

Appeal,” arguing, in relevant part, that he never received notice of the court’s order 

denying his habeas application. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) (permitting a district court to 

extend the time to file a civil appeal). 

On August 21, 2015, while this motion was pending, Mr. Coots filed a notice of 

appeal as to the denial of his habeas application. We dismissed his appeal as untimely. 

We explained: 

The timely filing of a notice of appeal is both mandatory and jurisdictional. 

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). In a proceeding under 28 

U.S.C. § 2254, a notice of appeal “must be filed with the district clerk 

within 30 days after entry of the judgment or order appealed from.” Fed. R. 

App. P. 4(a)(1)(A); see also Manco v. Werholtz, 528 F.3d 760, 761 (10th 

Cir. 2008) (applying Fed. R. App. P. 4(a) time limit to § 2254 proceeding). 

The district court is authorized to grant relief from this deadline by 

extending or reopening the time to appeal if certain conditions are satisfied. 

See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) and 4(a)(6). A motion for extension of time 

under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) must be filed no later than 30 days after the 

time to appeal expires, in this case March 24, 2014. Fed. R. App. P. 

4(a)(5)(A)(i). A motion to reopen the time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 

4(a)(6), which is based on lack of notice of entry of the judgment, must be 

filed within (1) 180 days after entry of the judgment (here, July 21, 2014) 

or (2) 14 days after the moving party receives notice of entry of the 

judgment (here, June 11, 2015, assuming Coots received notice [of] the 

Appellate Case: 16-6058 Document: 01019654332 Date Filed: 07/11/2016 Page: 2 
- 3 - 

district court’s May 28, 2015 order), “whichever is earlier.” Fed. R. App. P. 

4(a)(6)(B) (emphasis added). Although Coots filed his motion for 

extension of time to appeal on June 4, 2015, within 14 days of receiving 

notice, he did not file his motion by the earlier deadline, July 21, 2014. 

Because Coots’s motion for extension of time was not timely under either 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6), the district court lacks 

authority to grant any relief from the filing deadline. Coots’s August 21, 

2015 notice of appeal is clearly untimely and, therefore, this court lacks 

jurisdiction to consider this appeal. 

Coots v. H. A. Rios, Jr., No. 15-6157, at *2-3 (10th Cir. August 28, 2015). 

On September 4, 2015, Mr. Coots filed a “Supplemental/Motion for an 

Extension/Reopen the Time to Appeal” in district court, asserting he did not receive 

notice of the court’s order denying his habeas application until May 28, 2015. See Fed. 

R. App. P. 4(a)(6) (permitting a district court to reopen the time to file a civil appeal if, 

among other things, the movant did not receive notice of the entry of judgment within 

twenty-one days of entry). 

On October 21, 2015, Mr. Coots filed a “Motion to Add Supplemental 

Documentation.” He attached a letter from his attorney, stating the attorney was unable 

to find documentation indicating he sent Mr. Coots a copy of the court’s order denying 

him habeas relief. 

The district court denied the June 4, September 4, and October 21 (all 2015) 

motions, concluding they were untimely. 

II. DISCUSSION 

To appeal the denial of his Rule 4(a)(5) and Rule (4)(a)(6) motions in his § 2254 

proceeding, Mr. Coots must obtain a COA. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (“Unless a 

Appellate Case: 16-6058 Document: 01019654332 Date Filed: 07/11/2016 Page: 3 
- 4 - 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an appeal may not be taken to 

the court of appeals from . . . the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the 

detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court . . . . ”); Dulworth v. 

Jones, 496 F.3d 1133, 1135-36 (10th Cir. 2007) (noting other circuits require a COA to 

appeal the denial of a Rule 4(a)(6) motion because such denials are final orders); United 

States v. Rinaldi, 447 F.3d 192, 195 (3d Cir. 2006) (holding the denial of a Rule 4(a)(6) 

motion is a final order, and a COA is therefore necessary for appellate review of that 

denial); Eltayib v. United States, 294 F.3d 397, 398-99 (2d Cir. 2002) (same). 

To obtain a COA in a § 2254 case involving the denial of a Rule 4(a)(5) motion 

and Rule 4(a)(6) motion, Mr. Coots must at least show “jurists of reason would find it 

debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see also Rinaldi, 447 F.3d at 195; Eltayib, 294 F.3d 

at 400. 

Whether the district court correctly denied Mr. Coots’s motions is beyond debate. 

As we explained in our previous order, Mr. Coots was required to file a Rule 4(a)(5) 

motion within 30 days of entry of judgment, which he did not. He was required to file a 

Rule 4(a)(6) motion by July 21, 2014, which he did not. No reasonable jurist would 

argue the district court erred in denying Mr. Coots’s motions. We accordingly decline to 

issue a COA. 

Appellate Case: 16-6058 Document: 01019654332 Date Filed: 07/11/2016 Page: 4 
- 5 - 

III. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, we deny a COA and dismiss this matter. We also deny 

Mr. Coots’s request to proceed in forma pauperis.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Scott M. Matheson, Jr. 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 16-6058 Document: 01019654332 Date Filed: 07/11/2016 Page: 5