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

### Ju ly5,2007 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 TOD D D EAL, P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, v. DA VI D M CK UN E; ATTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F K A N SA S, R espon den t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 07- 3007 ( D . C . N o. 5: 06- cv- 3053) (D . K a n .)

OR DER B efor e B RI S CO E , EBEL and M CCO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. P e tit io n e r T o d d D e a l, a p ro se p e tit io n e r w h o is in c a rc e ra ted a t E llsw o rth C orr ect i onal Faci l i tyi n K ans as on a 1999 K ans as convi ct i on forfi r s t - degr ee m ur der , r ece nt l ys oughtt o appea l a dec i s i on bythe U . S. D i s tr i ctC our tforthe D is tr ic t o f

K a n s a s d e n y in g h is p e titio n fo r fe d e ra l h a b e a s re lie f u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 . H o w e v e r, af

ter h e filed h is re q u e st fo r a c e rtific a te o f a p p e a lab ili ty (“ C O A ” ) w ith th is C o u rt, a K a n sa s c o u rt a llo w e d M r. D e a l to re o p e n o n e o f h is s t at e courtappea l s . T hi s devel opm entr equi r es us t o R E V E R SE the di s tr i ct court ’ s deci s i on deny i ng M r . D eal ’ s habea s pet i t i on, and t o R E M A N D the mat t er to the co u rtb elow fo r co n side rati o n o f w h ethe r t o d ism iss or stayM r. D ea l’ s peti t i on w hil e M r. D eal exh aust s hi s st at e rem edies .- 2 -

28 U . S. C . § 2244( d) s et s a one- y eardeadl i ne forpr i s oner s i n s t at e cus t ody t o fi l e habe as pet i t i ons pur s uantt o § 2254. H ow ever , thi s deadl i ne i s t ol l ed for “[t ] he t i m e dur i ng w hi ch a pr oper l yfi l ed appl i cat i on forSt at e pos t - convi ct i on or o th e r c o llate ra l re v iew w ith re sp e c t to th e p e rtin e n t ju d g m e n t o r c laim is p en d ing . ” 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 4 4 (d)(2 ). T h e d istri ct co u rto b serv ed that M r. D ea l’ s fi r s t - degr ee mur derconvi ct i on beca m e fi nal on O ct ober9, 2001, atw hi ch poi nt the one- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons began t o run. T he l i m i t at i ons per i od w as t ol l ed w h e n M r. D e a l filed a p e tit io n fo r sta te p o st-c o n v ictio n re lief u n d e r K a n . S tat. A nn. § 60- 1507 on A ugus t29, 2002, butthe cl ock r es t art ed w hen the K ans as Supr eme C our tdeni ed the pet i t i on on Sept ember20, 2005. T he fe der al di s tr i ct courtfound thatthe dea dl i ne forM r . D eal t o have f i l ed hi s 28 U . S. C . § 2254 p e tit io n w a s O c to b e r 3 1 , 2 0 0 5 . M r. D e a l, ho w e v e r, d id n o t file th e p e tit io n u n til February14, 2006. T he di s tr i ctcourtconcl uded thatM r . D eal ’ s fede r al habea s p e t i t i o n w a s u n t i m e l y. H ow ever , s om et i m e i n 2002 or2003, M r . D eal al s o fi l ed a mot i on under K an. St at . A nn. § 22- 3504 t o corr ectan “i l l egal s ent ence . ” K ans as court s deni ed the § 22- 3504 m ot i on. M r . D eal fi l ed a t i m el ynot i ce of appea l fr om the § 22- 3504 deni al i n D ece m ber2003, buthe di d notdocketthe appe al w i thi n the 21- day p eriod req u ir ed b yK an sas ru les. S ee K an . S u p . C t. R . 2 . 0 4 . A cc o rdin g to M r. D eal , the couns el appoi nt ed t o handl e hi s § 22- 3504 appea l fi l ed the not i ce of appea l and then w i thdr ew fr om the ca s e. M r . D eal s t at es thati tt ook thr ee t o four- 3 -

m onths fora K ans as courtt o appoi ntnew couns el and forthatper s on t o acc ept the appoi nt m ent . B ythatt i m e, the 21- daydeadl i ne fordocket i ng hi s appea l of the deni al of the § 22- 3504 m ot i on had pas s ed. M r . D eal fur theral l eges thatthe new l y - appoi nt ed couns el as s ur ed hi m the § 22- 3504 m ot i on w as bei ng appea l ed, w hen i n r eal i tycouns el fai l ed t o pur s ue thi s appea l . M r . D eal cont ends he di d not l earn thatthe i l l egal s ent ence m ot i on w as neverappea l ed unt i l aft erthe fe der al habea s deadl i ne had pa s s ed. T h e d istric t co u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t alth o u g h e q u itab le to lli n g is a v a ilab le w hen a pe t i t i oner ’ s fai l ur e t o t i m el yfi l e a ha beas pet i t i on i s “ca us 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, 1 2 2 0 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ), M r. D e a l d id n o t d e m o n stra te “ d ili g e n c e ” in p u rsu in g h is p eti ti o n all eg ing an il lega l sen tenc e u n d er K an . S tat . A n n . § 2 2 -35 0 4 . In cons i der i ng M r . D eal ’ s r eques tforC O A , w e det erm i ned thatthe exe r ci s e of di l i gence s houl d notnece s s ar i l yencompas s a r equi r ementof s econd- gues s i ng the as s ur ance s of appoi nt ed couns el . O n M ay31, 2007, w e gr ant ed C O A on the i s s ue of w hetherthe t i m e t o fi l e hi s pet i t i on under28 U . S. C . § 2254 s houl d be e q u ita b ly to lle d . S ince then , w e h av e lea rne d fro m R esp o n d en ts th at on A p ri l 30 , 2 0 0 7 , M r. D eal fi l ed a mot i on w i th the K ans as Supr eme C our tt o al l ow hi m t o docketoutof ti m e h is ap p ea l from the d en ial o f h is § 2 2 -35 0 4 il lega l sen tenc e m o ti o n . M r. D eal ar gued thathi s appoi nt ed couns el m i s l ed hi m i nt o bel i evi ng thathi s § 22-- 4 -

3504 appea l w as pendi ng befor e s t at e court s . T he K ans as Supr eme C our tgr ant ed hi s m ot i on t o docketoutof t i m e on M ay30, 2007. R es pondent s i nform us that M r . D eal ’ s § 22- 3504 appea l now i s pendi ng i n s t at e court , and thatthe appe al re la te s b a c k to th e o ri g in a l filin g d a te o f th e § 2 2 -3 5 0 4 m o tio n . R e sp o n d e n ts, th e re fo re , co n c e d e th a t M r. D e a l “h a s a p e n d in g p o stconvi ct i on m ot i on i n s t at e court s s uffi ci entt o t ol l the fe der al s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons under28 U . S. C . § 2244( d) ( 2) , ” and that“the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons per i od i n w hi ch [M r . D eal ] m ayfi l e an appl i cat i on forfede r al habea s corpus r el i ef ha s not expi r ed. ” See a l s o B arnettv. L emast er , 167 F. 3d 1321, 1323 ( 10th C i r . 1999) ( h o l d i n g th a t“ p e n d i n g ” u n d e r§ 2 2 4 4 ( d ) ( 2 ) mu s t“ e n c o mp a s s a l l o f th e t i me d u ri n g w h ich a stat e p ri so n er is att em p ti n g , thro u g h p rop er u se o f state c o u rt pr ocedur es , t o exhaus ts t at e courtr emedi es w i th r egar d t o a part i cul ar p o s t- c o n v ic tio n a p p lic a tio n .” ). A cc o rdin g ly , alth o u g h the d istri ct co u rtu n d erstan d ab lyfo u n d that there w er e no pendi ng act i ons atthe t i m e i tdeni ed M r . D eal ’ s habea s pet i t i on, w e now m u st R E V E R S E th a t d e c isio n a n d a llo w K a n sa s s tate c o u rts to d e c id e th e m e rits of M r . D eal ’ s § 22- 3504 appea l . See R hi nes v. W eber , 544 U . S. 269, 273 ( 2005) (“i nter est s of co m i tyand fede ral i sm dict at e t hat s t at e cou rt s m usthav e t he fir st o p p o r tu n i tyt o d e c i d e a p e t i t i o n e r ’ s c l a i ms ” ( c i t a t i o n o mi t t e d ) ) . We RE M AND M r . D eal ’ s fede r al habea s pet i t i on t o the di s tr i ctcourtforcons i der at i on of w h ethe r a stayo r dism issal w ith o u t prejud ice w o u ld b e a p p rop ri ate, si n ce M r.- 5 -

D eal ’s peti t i on m aycon t ai n b oth exha ust ed an d u nex hau st ed clai m s. S ee R hines, 544 U . S. at277- 78. W e bel i eve the di s tr i ctcourtboth has the di s cr et i on t o m ake thi s det erm i nat i on, i d. , and i s i n the bes tpos i t i on t o do s o, s ee, e. g. , A ki ns v. K enney , 410 F. 3d 451, 456 ( 8th C i r . 2005) ; J acks on v. R oe, 425 F. 3d 654, 662 (9th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ).

ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT

D avi d M . E bel C i r cui tJ udge