UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________ 

MIGUEL TRUJILLO, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

v. 

DWAYNE SANTISTEVAN; THE 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE 

STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 

 Respondents - Appellees. 

No. 20-2074 

(D.C. No. 2:19-CV-00730-JB-CG) 

(D. N.M.) 

_______________________________ 

ORDER 

______________________________________ 

Before LUCERO, BACHARACH, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. 

_______________________________________ 

Mr. Miguel Trujillo sought federal habeas relief in district court, but 

the court denied relief. Mr. Trujillo wants to appeal, but he can do so only 

if a judge grants a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 

We decline to issue the certificate and dismiss the matter. 

The district court denied habeas relief, concluding that the action 

was untimely. Mr. Trujillo can challenge this conclusion only if it is 

reasonably debatable. Laurson v. Leyba, 507 F.3d 1230, 1232 (10th Cir. 

2007). In our view, no jurist could reasonably question the ruling on 

timeliness. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

November 3, 2020

Christopher M. Wolpert 

Clerk of Court
2 

For this habeas action, a one-year period of limitations exists. 

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). This period ordinarily starts when the conviction 

became final. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). Mr. Trujillo’s conviction became 

final upon the expiration of his time to seek direct review in state court. 

Rhine v. Weber, 182 F.3d 1153, 1155 (10th Cir. 1999). That deadline fell 

on December 8, 2003. On that day, the one-year period of limitations began 

running. 

But the limitations period is tolled when the petitioner seeks state 

habeas relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). And Mr. Trujillo filed a state habeas 

petition on April 1, 2004, 115 days into the one-year period of limitations. 

The limitations period wouldn’t re-start until the state habeas proceedings 

terminated. Id. Remarkably, the state habeas proceedings remained pending 

for roughly fourteen years, finally ending on July 13, 2018. At that point, 

Mr. Trujillo had 250 days left in which to file a federal habeas petition. 

The 250th day fell on March 20, 2019.1

 But Mr. Trujillo waited until 

August 9, 2019 to file a federal habeas petition. By that time, his federal 

habeas petition was 142 days late. 

Mr. Trujillo argues that restrictions on law-library access slowed his 

ability to prepare a state habeas petition. Despite these restrictions, Mr. 

Trujillo was able to file the state habeas petition. When he did so, the 

1

 The district court calculated the 250th day as March 21, 2019. But 

this one-day miscalculation does not affect the outcome. 
3 

limitations period was tolled, giving him ample time to seek federal habeas 

relief. So the restrictions in law-library access thus didn’t trigger equitable 

tolling. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996). 

Once the state habeas proceedings ended, Mr. Trujillo does not 

suggest further restrictions on his access to a law library.2

 At that point, he 

had 250 days in which to file a federal habeas petition. 

He nonetheless missed the limitations period by 142 days. In these 

circumstances, no reasonable jurist could regard the district court’s ruling 

as reasonably debatable. So we deny a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the matter. 

 Entered for the Court 

 Robert E. Bacharach 

 Circuit Judge 

2

 Mr. Trujillo also refers to deficiencies on the part of two attorneys 

(Mr. Daniel Salazar and Mr. Geoffrey Scovil) from 2005 to 2007. But the 

limitations period was already tolled from 2005 to 2007 because of the 

pendency of the state habeas proceedings.