## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### A u gu s t15,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT HUB E RT L I NN, P e tit io n e r - A p p e llan t, v. KI OW A COUN TY DI S TRI CT CO UR T ; S T AT E OF OKL AHOMA, R espon den t s - A pp el l ees. N o. 06- 6164 ( D. C. No. 0 5 - CV - 1 5 1 4 - T) (W .D . O k la .)

OR DER DENYI NG CERTI FI CATE OF APPE ALABI LI TY B efor e KELLY , M c KAY , and LU CE RO , C i rcui tJudg es. H ubertL i nn, a s t at e pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pr o s e, r eques t s a ce r t i fi cat e of appea l abi l i ty( “C O A ”) t o appea l the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of hi s 28 U . S. C . § 2254 h a b e a s p e tit io n . F o r su b sta n tiallyth e sa m e re a so n s s e t fo rth b yth e d istric t co u rt, w e DE NY a C O A and D I SM I SS . I n A pr i l 1996, L i nn w as convi ct ed i n O kl ahoma st at e courtof tw o count s of L e w d M o les tatio n , A f ter F o rm e r C o n v ictio n o f a F e lo n y , an d w a s s e n ten c e d to tw o cons ecut i ve t erm s of 500 y ear s ’ i m pr i s onm ent . H i s convi ct i on w as aff i r m ed bythe O kl ahoma C our tof C r i m i nal A ppeal s ( “O C C A ”) on J ul y11, 1997, andL i nn’ s pet i t i on w as fi l ed af t erA pr i l 24, 1996, the effec t i ve dat e of the 1 A n ti terrori sm an d E ffec ti v e D ea th P en altyA ct (“A E D P A ”); as a re su lt , A E D P A ’s p ro v is io n s a p p ly to th is c a s e . S e e R o g e rs v . G ib s o n , 1 7 3 F .3 d 1 2 7 8 , 1 2 8 2 n .1 ( 10 th Ci r . 19 99 ) ( c i t i ng Li nd h v . M urph y , 52 1 U. S. 32 0 ( 19 97 ) ) . A ED PA co n d it ion s a p eti ti o n er' s ri g h t t o ap p ea l a de n ial o f h ab ea s reli ef u n d er § 2254 upon a gr antof a CO A . 28 U . S. C . § 2253( c) ( 2) . A C O A m aybe i s s ued “onl yi f the appl i canthas m ade a s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of the deni al of a c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t.” § 2 2 5 3 (c )(2 ). T h is re q u ire s L in n to sh o w “ th a t re a so n a b le ju rists c o u ld d e b a te w h e th e r (o r, fo r th a t m a tter, a g re e th a t) th e p e tit io n sh o u ld h av e b ee n reso lved in a d iffe ren t m an n er o r th at th e issu es p rese n ted w ere adequa t e t o des erve enc our agementt o pr ocee d fur ther . ” Sl ack v. M cD ani el , 529 U . S. 473, 484 ( 2000) ( quot at i ons om i t t ed) . B eca us e the di s tr i ctcourtdeni ed Li nn a C O A , he maynotappea l the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on abs enta gr antof C O A by th is c o u rt . - 2 - w hen Li nn fai l ed t o s eek c ert i or ar i r evi ew of the O C C A ’ s deci s i on, hi s convi ct i on beca m e fi nal on O ct ober9, 1997. O n O ct ober26, 2004, over7 y ear s aft erhi s convi ct i on w as fi nal i zed, L i nn fi l ed a pe t i t i on forpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef i n s t at e court . H i s pet i t i on w as deni ed and the O C C A aff

i r m ed thatdeci s i on. L i nn then fi l ed a ha beas pet i t i on i n fede r al courton D ece m ber28, 2005. A ft erbei ng pr ovi ded w i th an opportuni tyt o s how caus e as t o w hyhi s pet i t i on w as unt i m el y , the di s tr i ctcourtrul ed thathi s pet i t i on w as t i m e- barr ed. A s ubs equentappl i cat i on fora C O A w as deni ed. H avi ng fai l ed t o secure a C O A from that court , L i nn no w seeks a C O A from us. 1 T he s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons forappl i cat i ons fora w r i tof habe as corpus i s s et forth in 28 U . S . C . § 2 24 4(d). Itst at es:

( 1) A 1- y earper i od of l i m i t at i on s hal l appl yt o an appl i cat i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus bya per s on i n cus t odypur s uantt o the j udgm entof a St at e court . T he l i m i t at i on per i od s hal l run fr om the l at es tof –A l though gener al l ythe s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons i s t ol l ed dur i ng the per i od 2 thatL i nn s oughtr el i ef i n s t at e court , thi s does nothel p L i nn beca us e he s ought s t at e pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef a ft erthe s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons per i od has al r eady e x p ir e d . S e e F is h e r v . G ib s o n , 2 6 2 F .3 d 1 1 3 5 , 1 1 4 2 -4 3 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). - 3 - ( A ) the dat e on w hi ch the j udgm entbeca m e fi nal bythe concl us i on of di r ectr evi ew orthe expi r at i on of the t i m e fors eeki ng s u c h r e v i e w; ( B ) the dat e on w hi ch the i m pedi m entt o fi l i ng an appl i cat i on cr eat ed bySt at e ac t i on i n vi ol at i on of the C ons t i tut i on or l aw s of the U ni t ed St at es i s r emoved, i f the appl i cantw as pr event ed fr om fi l i ng bys uch St at e ac t i on; ( C ) the dat e on w hi ch the cons t i tut i onal r i ghtas s ert ed w as i ni t i al l yr ecogni zed bythe Supr eme C our t , i f the r i ghthas been n e w lyre c o g n ize d b yth e S u p re m e C o u rt a n d m a d e re tro a c tiv e ly appl i cabl e t o cas es on col l at er al r evi ew ; or ( D ) the dat e on w hi ch the fa ctual pr edi cat e of the cl ai m or cl ai m s pr es ent ed coul d have be en di s cover ed thr ough the exe r ci s e of due di l i gence . ( 2) T he t i m e dur i ng w hi ch a pr oper l yfi l ed appl i cat i on for St at e pos t - convi ct i on orothercol l at er al r evi ew w i th r es pectt o the p erti n en t j u d g m en t or claim is pe n d ing sh all n o t be c o u n ted to w ard anyper i od of l i m i t at i on underthi s s ubs ect i on. L i nn’ s convi ct i on beca m e fi nal on O ct ober9, 1997. U nderthe pr ovi s i ons of A E D PA , L i nn had unt i l O ct ober9, 1998, t o fi l e a t i m el yhabea s pet i t i on. See U n ited S tate s v . H u rst, 3 2 2 F .3 d 1 2 5 6 , 1 2 6 1 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). B e c a u se L in n d id notfi l e hi s fede r al habea s pet i t i on unt i l D ece m ber28, 2005, hi s pet i t i on i s t i m ebarr ed. 2 L i nn argues that A E D P A ’s st atute of l i m i t at i on s does no tapp l ybecau se A E D PA w as enac t ed af t erhi s convi ct i on. H e i s w r ong. W e have hel d that A E D PA ’ s s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons appl i es t o al l habea s pet i t i ons fi l ed i n fede r al- 4 -

c o u rt a f ter its e n a c tm e n t, an d L in n ’s p e tit io n , file d in D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 5 , fa lls w ith in its s c o p e . M itc h e ll v . G ib s o n . 2 6 2 F .3 d 1 0 3 6 , 1 0 4 5 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). L i nn al s o cont ends thatthe s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons s houl d be equi t abl yt ol l ed b e c a u se h is c o u n se l, ap p o in ted o n M a y1 5 , 1 9 9 6 , to h a n d le h is d ire c t ap p e a l in thi s m att er , fai l ed t o keep hi m i nform ed of the s t atus of hi s di r ectappea l forthe fo llo w in g se v e n y e a rs. E q u itab le to lli n g is a v a ilab le “ w h e n a n in m a te d ili g e n tly pur s ues hi s cl ai m s and demonstr at es thatthe fa i l ur e t o t i m el yfi l e w as caus ed by extr aor di naryci r cumst ance s bey ond hi s contr ol . ” M ar s h v. Soar es , 223 F. 3d 1217, 1220 ( 10th C i r . 2000) . A s not ed above , L i nn di d notfi l e anyact i on for p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f i n s t a t e c o u r tu n t i l s e v e n y e a r s a f t e rh i s c o n v i c t i o n b e c a me fi nal , and hi s onl ycl ai m as t o w hythi s del ayoccurr ed i s thathi s att orneynever resp o n d ed to h is l ett ers a n d p h o n e c all s as h e “ sat an d w ait ed , b u t no t very p a tien tly .” S u c h a lleg a tio n s d o n o t sa tisf yh is o b lig a tio n to d ili g e n tlyp u rsu e h is a p p e a l. A ccordi ng l y , L i nn ’s app l i cat i on for a C O A i s DE NI ED a n d th e a p p e a l is DI S M I S S ED . L i nn ’s m oti on t o p roceed in form a pau peri s i s GR ANTED . ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT C arlos F L u ce ro C i r cui tJ udge