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

### A u gu s t11,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C lerk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT M I CH AE L P . DAVI DS ON, P e tit io n e r - A p p e llan t, v. D A V I D R . M cK U N E , W ar den, L a n s i n g C o rr e c t i o n a l F a c i l i ty; AT T ORNE Y GE NE RA L OF K A N SA S, R espon den t s - A pp el l ees. N o. 06- 3019 ( D. C. No . 0 5 - CV- 3 1 3 6 - S AC)

(D . K a n .)

ORDE R DENYI NG CERTI FI CATE O F AP PEALABI LI TY B efor e KELLY , M c KAY , and LU CE RO , C i rcui tJudg es. M ich a e l P . D a v id so n , a s tate in m a te p ro c e e d in g p ro se , se e k s a c e rtific a te of appe al abi l i ty( “C O A ”) t o appea l fr om the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of hi s pet i t i on fo r a w ri t of

h ab ea s co rpu s filed p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 4 . T h e d istri ct co u rt di s m i s s ed the habe as act i on as t i m e- barr ed underthe one- y earl i m i t at i on per i od s e tfo rth i n 2 8 U. S. C. § 2 2 4 4 ( d ) , a n dd e n i e da mot i o n fo rr e c o n s i d e r a t i o n . To obt ai n a C O A , M r . D avi ds on m us tm ake “ a s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of the deni al of a c on s t i tut i on a l r i gh t . ” 28 U . S. C. § 2 25 3( c ) ( 2) ; M i l l e r - El v. Cockr e l l , 53 7 U. S. 32 2, 33 6 (200 3) ( i nternal quotat i on om i tt ed). W here a dis tri ctcou rtdis m i sses aT he di s tr i ctcourtdet erm i ned thatthe l i m i t at i ons per i od began t o run “on 1 orbefor e June 6, 1998. ” I tw oul d begi n t o run on J une 5, 1998. See U ni t ed St a t e s v. H ur s t , 32 2 F. 3d12 56 , 12 60 ( 10 th Ci r . 20 03 ) ( a do pt i ng Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 6 (a) as th e m etho d o f c o u n ti n g ). - 2 - h ab e a s p e t i t i o n o n p r o c e d u r a l g r o u n d s wi th o u ta d d r e s s i n g th e me r i t s , “ a CO A sh o u ldiss u e w h e n th e p riso n e r sh o w s, a t lea st, th a t ju rists o f re a so n w o u ldfin d it debat abl e w hetherthe pet i t i on s t at es a val i d cl ai m of the deni al of a c ons t i tut i onal ri g h t and that juri sts of rea so n w o u ld find itd eb atab le w h ethe r th e d istri ct co u rt w as corr ecti n i t s pr ocedur al rul i ng. ” Sl ack v. M cD ani el , 529 U . S. 473, 484 (20 0 0 ). M r. D a v id so n w a s c o n v icte do f first-d e g re e m u rd e r in sta te d istric t co u rt, and hi s convi ct i on w as aff i rm ed on appe al . St at e v. D avi ds on, 954 P. 2d 702 ( K an. M ar . 6, 1998) . H i s convi ct i on beca m e fi nal on J une 4, 1998, the l as tday 1 o n wh i c h h e c o u l d h a v e fi l e d a c e rt i o r a r i p e t i t i o n wi th th e Un i t e dS t a t e s S u p r e me C ourt . See 28 U . S. C . § 2244( d) ( 1) ( A ) ; C l ayv. U ni t ed St at es , 537 U . S. 522, 527- 2 8 (2 0 0 3 ) ( a d d in g 9 0 -d a yp e ri o d in w h ic h d e fe n d a n t c o u ld s e e kc e rt io ra ri ). T her eaf t er , M r . D avi ds on had one- y eart o fi l e hi s fede r al habea s pet i t i on, butthe t i m e per i od w oul d be t ol l ed bythe t i m e a pr oper l yfi l ed s t at e pos t - convi ct i on m ot i on w as pendi ng. 28 U . S. C . § 2244( d) ( 1) ( A ) , ( d) ( 2) . T hi rty - fi ve day s el aps ed w i thouts uch a mot i on, ( J une 5- 30 and Jul y 1- 9) . O n J ul y10, 1998, M r . D avi ds on fi l ed a K an. St at . A nn. § 60- 1507 pos t - convi ct i on m ot i on, w hi ch ul t i m at el yended w ith a d en ial o f re v iew b ythe K an sas S u p rem e C o u rto n M arc h 3 1 , 2 0 0 4 . M r.- 3 -

D av idso n fil ed h is fed era l petit ion o n M arc h 1 8 , 2 0 0 5 . T h e d istri ct co u rt concluded thatthe per i od betw een M ar ch 31, 2004 and M ar ch 18, 2005 per i od had t o be aggr egat ed w i th the i ni t i al per i od i n w hi ch a s t at e pos t - convi ct i on w as p e n d in g , a n d th e re fo re , th e fe d e ra l p e titio n w a s u n tim e ly. O n appea l , M r . D avi ds on fi r s tar gues thathe s houl d have an addi t i onal 30 d a y s f r o m th e d e n i a l o f

h i s s t a t e p e t i t i o n fo rr e v i e w u n t i l th e ma n d a t e b e c a me fi nal and, i n the al t ernat i ve, he i s ent i t l ed t o equi t abl e t ol l i ng becaus e he r el i ed on pos t - convi ct i on couns el ’ s i ncorr ectgui dance as t o w hen hi s fede r al habea s pet i t i on had t o be fi l ed. A pl t . B r . at12- 16. M r. D av idso n reli es u p o n B u n n yv . M it ch ell , 2 6 2 F . 3 d9 7 3 , 9 7 4 (9th C ir . 2001) ( percur i am), a ca s e i nvol vi ng a C al i forni a rul e pr ovi di ng thata dec i s i on by th e sta te s u p re m e c o u rt b e c a m e fin a l 3 0 d a y s a f terfili n g . P u rsu a n t to K a n . S . C t. R . 7. 06, i tdoes appearthatM r . D avi ds on had another20- dayper i od i n w hi ch he coul d have f

i l ed a r ehear i ng pet i t i on fr om the K ans as Supr eme C ourt ’ s or der d e n y in g re v ie w , a n d w e h a v e h e ld th a t s u c h tim e is to lle du n d e r § 2 2 4 4 (d )( 2 ). See Serr ano v. W i l l i ams, 383 F. 3d 1181, 1185 ( 10th C i r . 2004) ( becaus e N ew M exi co di d notpr eclude the fi l i ng a r ehear i ng pet i t i on t o r econs i derthe deni al of c e rtio ra ri, th a t ti m e w o u ldb e to lled e v e n w h e re p e tit io n e r d idn o t so file); M ill s v. M cK une, 2006 W L 1755962, at*2 ( 10th C i r . J une 28, 2006) ( unpubl i s hed) ( appl y i ng Serr ano t o deni al of r evi ew byK ans as Supr eme C ourt ) ; T hom e v. R obert s , 2006 W L 1017646, at*2- 3 ( 10th C i r . A pr . 19, 2006) ( unpubl i s hed)I n addi t i on t o the 35 day s pr evi ous l ym ent i oned, 330 day s el aps ed 2 betw een A pr i l 20, 2004 ( the l as tdayon w hi ch a mot i on forr ehear i ng coul d have b ee n fil ed ) an d M arc h 1 8 , 2 0 0 5 (th e fil ing o f M r. D av idso n ’s fe d era l petit ion ). - 4 - (sam e). H o w ev er, ev en w ith an ad d it ion al 20 d ay s o f to ll ing , M r. D av idso n ’s p e t i t i o n i s u n t i m e l y, h a v i n g b e e n fi l e do n th e 3 6 6 th d a y. 2 M r. D a v id so n a lso a rg u e s fo r e q u itab le to lli n g b a se do n a lette r f ro m p o stconvi ct i on couns el advi s i ng thathe had one - y earfr om the dat e the K ans as Supr eme C ourtdeni ed r evi ew . A pl t . B r . at12- 13. W e have r ej ect ed att orney m iscalcu lat ion o r m ist ak e a s to the li m it ati o n s p eriod as a n “e x tr ao rdin ary ci r cumst ance ” j us t i fy i ng equi t abl e t ol l i ng. See St eed v. H ead, 219 F. 3d 1298, 1300 ( 10th C i r . 2000) . N ordoes M r . D avi ds on have an i neffect i ve as s i s t ance cl ai m ent i t l i ng hi m t o equi t abl e t ol l i ng. See 28 U . S. C . § 2254( i ) ( “The i neffect i venes s ori ncompet ence of couns el dur i ng Feder al orSt at e col l at er al pos t - convi ct i on pr ocee di ngs s hal l notbe a gr ound forr el i ef i n a pr ocee di ng a risin g u n d e r se c tio n 2 2 5 4 .”); U n ited S tate s v . M a rtin , 4 0 8 F .3 d1 0 8 9 , 1 0 9 3 (8 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) (no ti n g that ineffe cti v e a ssist an ce o f c o u n sel b ase do n co u n sel’s negl i gence orm i s t ake ha s notbeen c ons i der ed an e xtr aor di naryci r cumst ance for eq u it ab le t o ll ing ). W e D E N Y a C O A , an d D IS M IS S th is a p p e a l. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt P au l J. K ell y , Jr. C i r cui tJ udge