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

### M ay21,2007 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 T E RR Y GE NE CA RE Y,

P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, N o. 07- 5032 v. ( N . D . O kl ahoma) J U S T IN J O N E S , W a rd e n ,

R es pondent - A ppel l ee. ( D . C. N o. 06 - CV - 37 - P)

OR DER B efor e HENR Y , TY M KOVI CH , and HO LM ES , C i rcui tJudg es. T e rryC a re y , p ro c e e d in g p ro se , se e k s a c e rtific a te o f a p p e a lab ili ty ( “C O A ”) t o appea l the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or derdeny i ng hi s 28 U . S. C . § 2254 pet i t i on fo r h a b e a s c o rp u s a s u n tim e ly f ile d . See 28 U . S. C . § 2253( c) ( 1) ( A ) ( pr ovi di ng that an app eal m ayno tbe taken from the d enial of a § 22 54 hab eas pet i t i on un l ess th e p e tit io n e r first o b tain s a C O A ). M r. C a re ya lso se e k s le a v e to p ro c e e d in fo rm a p a u p e ri s (“ IF P ” ). In hi s § 22 54 peti t i on , M r. C areycon t end s the p rosecut or m ade fal se s t at ement s and thathe pr es ent ed per j ur ed t es t i m onyi n vi ol at i on of hi s due pr oces s r i ght s . H e al s o ar gues thathi s couns el pr ovi ded i neffect i ve as s i s t ance w h e n h e fa i l e d t o o bj e c tt o th e s e s t a t e m e n t s a n d t e s t i m o n y.-2- I . BA CK GR OUND A juryin the D istri ct C o u rto f D elaw are C o u n ty , O k laho m a c o n v ict ed M r. C ar eyof bur gl aryaft erform erconvi ct i on of tw o orm or e fe l oni es . M r . C ar ey re c e iv e d a s e n te n c e o f fif ty y e a rs ’ i m p ri s o n m e n t, w ith fif te e n y e a rs s u s p e n d e d . T he O kl ahoma C our tof C r i m i nal A ppeal s ( “O C C A ”) aff i r m ed hi s convi ct i on on d ir ec t app ea l on F eb rua ry2 , 1 9 9 6 . M r. C are yd id n o t seek a w ri t of ce rt iorari f ro m th e U n ited S tate s S u p re m e C o u rt. O n A pr i l 9, 2003, M r . C ar eyfi l ed hi s fi r s tappl i cat i on forpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef. A ccor di ng t o M r . C ar ey , the tr i al courtj udge vac at ed the s us pended p o rtio n o f

h is s e n ten c e . M r. C a re ysta tes h e filed a se c o n d a p p lica tio n fo r p o stconvi ct i on r el i ef on A ugus t18, 2004. T he s t at e di s tr i ctcourtj udge deni ed the re q u e ste d re lief

o n S e p tem b e r 6 , 2 0 0 5 , an d th e O C C A d e n ied h is a p p e a l o f th is o rd e r o n N o v e m b e r 2 2 , 2 0 0 5 . M r. C a re yfiled h is fe d e ra l p e tit io n u n d e r § 2 2 5 4 o n D e c e m b e r 2 2 , 2 0 0 5 , in the W es t ern D i s tr i ctof O kl ahoma. T he courttr ans ferr ed the pet i t i on t o the N o rt h e rn D is tr ic t o f

O k la h o m a , w h e re it w a s file d o n J a n u a ry 1 9 , 2 0 0 5 .

I I . DI S CU S S I ON I n or dert o obt ai n a C O A , M r . C ar eym us tm ake “ a s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of the deni al of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght . ” 28 U . S. C . § 2253( c) ( 2) . I n or dert o do s o, M r . C ar ey“musts how thatr eas onabl e j ur i s t s coul d debat e w hether. . . the pet i t i on s houl d have be en r es ol ved i n a di ffe r entm annerorthatthe i s s ues-3-

pr es ent ed w er e ade quat e t o des erve enc our agementt o pr ocee d fur ther . ” Mi l l e r - El v . C o c kre ll , 537 U . S. 322, 336 ( 2003) ( al t er at i on and i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . “[A ] cl ai m can be debat abl e eve n though everyj ur i s tof r eas on m i ght a g re e , af

ter th e C O A h a s b e e n g ra n ted a n d th e c a se h a s re c e iv e d f u ll cons i der at i on, that[the] pet i t i onerw i l l notpr evai l . ” Id. at338. W hen a di s tr i ct c o u rt h a s d ism iss e d a h a b e a s p e tit io n o n p ro c e d u ra l g ro u n d s, a c e rtific a te w ill onl yi s s ue w hen “j ur i s t s of r eas on w oul d fi nd i tdebat abl e w hetherthe di s tr i ct courtw as corr ecti n i t s pr ocedur al rul i ng. ” Slack v . McD ani el , 529 U . S. 473, 484 (20 0 0 ). U n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 (d )(1 ), “[ a ] 1 -y e a r p e rio d o f lim itatio n sh a ll ap p ly to a n a p p lica tio n fo r a w rit o f h a b e a s c o rp u s b ya p e rso n in c u sto d yp u rsu a n t to th e j u d g m e n to f

a S t a t e c o u r t . ” I n h i s C O A a p p l i c a t i o n b e fo r e u s , M r . C a r e y devot es l i t t l e att ent i on t o addr es s i ng the unt i m el i nes s of hi s pet i t i on. B efor e the d i s tr i c tc o u r t , h o we v e r , h e a r g u e d th a th e wa s e n t i t l e d t o e q u i t a b l e t o l l i n g . He a ss e rte d th a t f

ro m M a rc h 3 , 1 9 9 6 u n til A u g u st 3 0 , 2 0 0 6 , h e d ili g e n tlyso u g h t to obt ai n tr i al tr ans cr i pt s fr om the D el aw ar e C ountyC l erk’ s offi ce. T he di s tr i ct courtconcl uded thatM r . C ar eyw as notent i t l ed t o s t atut oryorequi t abl e t ol l i ng. H er e, fors ubs t ant i al l ythe s ame r eas ons as thos e s etfor th i n the di s tr i ct co u rt ’s ord er, w e c o n clud e tha t M r. C are yis no t entit led to a C O A . F ir st, M r. C ar eyi s notent i t l ed t o s t atut oryt ol l i ng. H e fi l ed hi s fi r s tpos t - convi ct i on appl i cat i on on A pr i l 9, 2004, al m os ts i x y ear s aft er§ 2244( d) ( 1) ’ s one- y ear-4-

l i m i t at i ons per i od expi r ed. H e fi l ed hi s s econd appl i cat i on on A ugus t18, 2005, m o re th a n e ig h t yea rs a f te r t h e e x p ir a tio n o f

th e lim ita tio n s p e ri o d . C o n s e q u e n tly, M r . C ar ey ’ s fede r al habea s pet i t i on, w hi ch he f i l ed on D ece m ber22, 2005, w as u n tim e ly f

ile d . A s to e q u itab le to lli n g , it“ is o n lya 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 . ” Mars h v. Soar es , 223 F. 3d 1217, 1220 ( 10th C i r . 2000) . R eas onabl e j ur i s t s w oul d agr ee thatthe di s tr i ct courtw as corr ectw hen i tconcl uded thatan “i nm at e’ s l ack of s t at e courtr ecor ds does notj us t i fyequi t abl e t ol l i ng. ” R ec. doc. 17 at4, and n. 1 ( s ee i d. a t n .1 (c o llec tin g c a se s). T h u s, M r. C a re yh a s n o t sh o w n th a t h e d ili g e n tlyp u rsu e d h is cl ai m s and h i s case does no tpresent“rar e and excep t i on al ci rcum st ances” w a rr a n tin g e q u ita b le to llin g u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 (d ). G i bs on v. K l i nger , 232 F . 3 d 7 9 9 , 8 0 8 ( 1 0 th C i r . 2 0 0 0 ) ( i n t e rn a l q u o t a t i o n m a r k s o m i t t e d ) . A c c o r d i n g l y, w e D E N Y M r . C ar ey ’ s r eques tfora C O A , D E N Y hi s m ot i on t o pr ocee d I FP, and D IS M IS S the m att er. E n ter e d fo r th e C o u rt, E L IS A B E T H A . S H U M A K E R , C lerk B y: D ep u tyC lerk