Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-09-41290/USCOURTS-ca5-09-41290-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lynn Lewis Funk
Appellant
Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-41290 c/w 09-41293

Summary Calendar

LYNN LEWIS FUNK,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

RICK THALER, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:09-CV-510 USDC

No. 4:09-CV-543

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Lynn Lewis Funk, Texas prisoner # 1275560, moves this court for a

certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the dismissals of his § 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 applications as time barred. Funk sought to challenge his conviction in

Cause No. F-2004-0307-C of two counts of indecency with a child and two counts

of sexual assault and his conviction in Cause No. F-2004-0308-C of three counts

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 13, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 09-41290 Document: 00511202890 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/13/2010
No. 09-41290 c/w 09-41293

of indecency with a child. He has also filed motions for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis (IFP) on appeal, to use the original record IFP, and to expedite

consideration of his motion for a COA.

Funk argues that the limitations period should be statutorily tolled from

the date his conviction became final until September 2008, thereby making his

§ 2254 applications timely. He also argues that his applications should be

deemed timely based upon equitable tolling and actual innocence. The

remainder of his brief is dedicated to arguments on the merits of his

constitutional claims and arguments regarding procedural errors in the state

habeas proceedings.

To obtain a COA, Funk must make a substantial showing of the denial of

a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.

322, 336 (2003). When the district court’s denial of federal habeas relief is based

on procedural grounds, as here, “a COA should issue when the prisoner shows,

at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states

a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that 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).

Funk has not made the required showing on his equitable tolling and

actual innocence claims. Accordingly, a COA is denied on these issues. See

Slack, 529 U.S. at 484.

In Egerton v. Cockrell, 334 F.3d 433, 436-39 (5th Cir. 2003), this court

considered whether denial of access to legal materials can constitute a

state-created impediment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(B). Egerton was

denied access to a copy of § 2244(d)(1) for over two years because he was first

housed in a unit that did not have library privileges and then was transferred

to a unit that had inadequate library facilities. Id. at 435. This court concluded

that the State’s failure to provide “materials necessary to prisoners to challenge

their convictions or confinement, in this case a copy of the very statute that is

2

 Case: 09-41290 Document: 00511202890 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/13/2010
No. 09-41290 c/w 09-41293

being used to render Egerton’s petition time-barred, constitutes an ‘impediment’

for purposes of invoking § 2244(d)(1)(B).” Id. at 438-39. Whether a prisoner has

demonstrated the existence of a state-created impediment is highly fact

dependent. See id. at 438.

In verified objections to the magistrate judges’s reports, Funk detailed his

numerous housing assignments and asserted that, as a result of the

inadequacies in the various prison libraries where he was housed, he was

prevented from accessing the AEDPA until September 2008. The district courts

overruled Funk’s objections without making factual findings regarding the

existence of a state-created impediment. Without factual findings regarding the

materials available to Funk for challenging his conviction, this court cannot

conclusively determine that Funk was not prevented from filing his § 2254

applications by the existence of a state-created impediment. See Thames v.

Wilson, 179 F. App’x 241, 242-43 (5th Cir. 2006); see also Fuller v. Johnson, 114

F.3d 491, 495 (5th Cir. 1997).

In light of the foregoing, Funk has made a showing that the correctness of

the district court’s procedural ruling concerning the existence of a state-created

impediment is debatable. See Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. Because the procedural

ruling is debatable, a COA should be granted if reasonable jurists could debate

whether the district court pleadings, the record, and the COA motion contain a

valid constitutional claim, or if those materials are unclear or incomplete.

Houser v. Dretke, 395 F.3d 560, 562 (5th Cir. 2004).

The district courts dismissed Funk’s § 2254 applications as time barred

sua sponte, prior to service on the State, and without the benefit of a complete

state court record. We express no opinion on the validity of Funk’s ineffective

assistance of counsel claims; the record is incomplete. Accordingly a COA is

granted solely on the issue whether the statute of limitations was tolled due to

a state-created impediment. The case is vacated and remanded for the district

3

 Case: 09-41290 Document: 00511202890 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/13/2010
No. 09-41290 c/w 09-41293

courts to make findings whether a state-created impediment prevented Funk

from timely filing his § 2254 applications. See Houser, 395 F.3d at 562.

Funk’s motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is granted. His motions

to use the original record IFP, and for expedited consideration of his motion for

a COA are denied.

COA GRANTED in part; COA DENIED in part; IFP GRANTED;

VACATED and REMANDED; REMAINING MOTIONS DENIED.

4

 Case: 09-41290 Document: 00511202890 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/13/2010