UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

ANGELO ORTEGA-CADELAN, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

v. 

DON LANGFORD, 

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 21-3193 

(D.C. No. 5:20-CV-03178-SAC) 

(D. Kan.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

_________________________________ 

Before BACHARACH, MURPHY, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Angelo Ortega-Cadelan, a Kansas state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a 

certificate of appealability (“COA”) so he can appeal the district court’s dismissal of the 

habeas corpus petition he filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (providing no appeal may be taken from a final order disposing of a 

§ 2254 petition unless the petitioner first obtains a COA). Because reasonable jurists 

would not debate the district court’s dismissal of his petition as untimely, we deny his 

request for a COA and dismiss this appeal. 

In 2007, Ortega-Cadelan pled guilty to rape and was sentenced to life 

imprisonment with the possibility of parole after twenty-five years. The Kansas Supreme 

Court affirmed his sentence on direct appeal. State v. Ortega-Cadelan, 194 P.3d 1195 

(Kan. 2008). In 2009, Ortega-Cadelan filed a state postconviction action and a federal 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

February 1, 2022

Christopher M. Wolpert 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 21-3193 Document: 010110639576 Date Filed: 02/01/2022 Page: 1
2 

habeas petition. The federal district court dismissed his habeas petition in February 2010 

so that he could exhaust his state remedies, warning him that he would only have three 

months to file a federal habeas petition after the state courts resolved his state 

postconviction action, and advising him to file his federal petition as early as practicable 

within that three-month window. Ortega-Cadelan voluntarily dismissed his state 

postconviction action in 2012. Shortly thereafter, he filed a second state postconviction 

action, which finished making its unsuccessful way through the state court system in 

2015. In 2017, Ortega-Cadelan filed a state motion to correct illegal sentence, which was 

likewise unsuccessful. 

In July 2020, Ortega-Cadelan filed the instant federal habeas petition. The district 

court concluded that Ortega-Cadelan’s state postconviction filings had only tolled the 

statute of limitations until September 2015, and the district court accordingly ordered 

Ortega-Cadelan to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed as untimely. 

When Ortega-Cadelan failed to respond to the show-cause order, the district court 

dismissed the petition. Ortega-Cadelan subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration in 

which he asserted, among other things, that he had assumed the federal habeas petition he 

filed in 2009 would be reinstated when he finished exhausting his state remedies. The 

district court considered this motion on the merits, construed it to request equitable 

tolling of the statute of limitations, and denied equitable tolling based primarily on the 

principle that “ignorance of the law, even for an incarcerated pro se petitioner, generally 

does not excuse prompt filing.” Marsh v. Soares, 223 F.3d 1217, 1220 (10th Cir. 2000) 

(quotation omitted). 

Appellate Case: 21-3193 Document: 010110639576 Date Filed: 02/01/2022 Page: 2
3 

To be entitled to a COA, Ortega-Cadelan must show “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). 

In his application for a COA, Ortega-Cadelan focuses on the underlying merits of 

his habeas petition and touches only briefly on the district court’s procedural ruling. 

Regarding the procedural ruling, Ortega-Cadelan appears to argue solely that his federal 

habeas petition should have been treated as timely because (1) the state agreed not to 

contest his filing of a second postconviction petition in 2012, and (2) he “believes the 

case was stayed until exhaustion of remedies.” 

Having undertaken a thorough review of Ortega-Cadelan’s appellate filings, the 

district court’s orders, and the record on appeal, we conclude Ortega-Cadelan is not 

entitled to a COA. As the district court explained in its comprehensive and persuasive 

orders, the statute of limitations expired long before Ortega-Cadelan filed this federal 

habeas petition in 2020, even with the benefit of statutory tolling during the pendency of 

his second state postconviction action, and Ortega-Cadelan’s ignorance of the law and 

mistaken assumptions about his first federal habeas petition do not excuse his untimely 

filing of this petition. 

 

Appellate Case: 21-3193 Document: 010110639576 Date Filed: 02/01/2022 Page: 3
4 

We accordingly deny Ortega-Cadelan’s request for a COA and dismiss the appeal. 

Ortega-Cadelan’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

Entered for the Court 

Michael R. Murphy 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 21-3193 Document: 010110639576 Date Filed: 02/01/2022 Page: 4