UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

LEROY HAYES, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

v. 

WARDEN BEAR, 

 Respondent - Appellee. 

No. 18-6112 

(D.C. No. 5:18-CV-00391-D) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

_________________________________ 

Before PHILLIPS, McKAY, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Leroy Hayes, a state prisoner proceeding pro se,1

 seeks a certificate of 

appealability (COA) to challenge the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254 petition. He also moves to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). We deny Hayes a 

COA, and we deny his IFP motion. 

 * This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the 

case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its 

persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

1

 We construe a pro se appellant’s complaint liberally. Gaines v. Stenseng, 292 

F.3d 1222, 1224 (10th Cir. 2002). But we won’t serve as his advocate. Hall v. 

Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

September 4, 2018

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
2 

BACKGROUND 

On April 11, 1996, Hayes entered a blind guilty plea to state-court charges 

including indecent or lewd acts with a child under sixteen, exhibition of obscene or 

lewd materials to a minor, procuring a minor for child pornography, possession of 

child pornography, and solicitation to commit murder. He also entered a blind guilty 

plea to forcible oral sodomy. He received life sentences on each count, with some to 

be served concurrently and others to be served consecutively. 

On August 25, 1999, Hayes filed his first state-court post-conviction-relief 

application. The state trial court denied his application on October 14, 1999. Hayes 

appealed that denial to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, which dismissed 

his appeal.

On April 24, 2018, Hayes filed this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. In his petition, 

he alleged that he wasn’t allowed to directly appeal his convictions due to his 

“disabilities and counsels [sic] refusal to file one,” R. at 8; that all of his “sentences 

have been discharged under Okla. Uniform Jury Instruction 10-13-B, and 1997 

legislative” action, id. at 9, and that Oklahoma lacked jurisdiction over his criminal 

case. Hayes alleged he timely filed his petition because “actual innocence claims can 

not be time barred”; because “jurisdictional claims can not be waived or time 

barred”; because “state impediments to filing [his petition] were lifted only in 2017”; 

and because the “predicate for [his] claims could not have been discovered before 

8/8/2017, when 10th Cir. Appeals Court recognized them,” id. at 16. 
3 

The district court dismissed Hayes’s § 2254 petition as time-barred because 

the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s (AEDPA) one-year statute of 

limitations had expired no later than July 2, 1997. And the district court concluded 

that Hayes failed to allege sufficient factual allegations to justify equitable tolling.

The district court declined to issue Hayes a COA and denied Hayes’s motion to 

proceed IFP on appeal, finding that any appeal wouldn’t be taken in good faith.

Hayes now appeals. 

DISCUSSION 

Before Hayes’s appeal may proceed, he must obtain a COA. Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484–85 (2000). To do so, he must make a “substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “Where a 

plain procedural bar is present and the district court is correct to invoke it to dispose 

of the case, a reasonable jurist could not conclude [] that the district court erred in 

dismissing the petition[.]” Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. 

AEDPA provides a one-year statute of limitations period for habeas petitions 

filed by persons in custody under the authority of a state-court judgment. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2244(d)(1). That limitation period runs from the date the state-court judgment 

becomes final by conclusion of direct review or the date when the time to seek such 

review expires, among other dates not relevant to this appeal. Id. State petitions for 

post-conviction relief filed within AEDPA’s one-year limitation toll the statute of 

limitations. § 2244(d)(2); Clark v. Oklahoma, 468 F.3d 711, 714 (10th Cir. 2006). 

Equitable tolling can also provide relief from AEDPA’s one-year limitation period. 
4 

Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 634 (2010). Hayes is entitled to equitable tolling if 

he can show (1) that he has diligently pursued his rights, and (2) that extraordinary 

circumstances blocked him from timely filing. Id. at 649 (quoting Pace v. 

DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005)). 

Having reviewed the record, we agree that no jurist of reason could conclude 

that Hayes timely filed his § 2254 petition within AEDPA’s one-year statute of 

limitations. AEDPA became effective April 24, 1996, after Hayes had been 

convicted. From AEDPA’s effective date, absent tolling, Hayes had one year, that is, 

until April 24, 1997, to file his § 2254 petition. He did so 20 years too late. We also 

agree with the district court that Hayes has failed to allege sufficient facts to support 

any equitable tolling. So we deny Hayes a COA. 

We deny Hayes’s IFP motion. His inmate-savings account shows a balance 

sufficient to prepay the $505 appellate filing fee. 

CONCLUSION 

We deny Hayes a COA and we deny his IFP motion. 

Entered for the Court 

Gregory A. Phillips 

Circuit Judge