W e lib era llyco n stru e H aw s’ pro se p le a d in g s . See Ledbe tterv. C i t y of Topeka, 1 Kan. , 3 1 8 F . 3 d1 1 8 3 , 1 1 8 7 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). 

## F I LED United State s C ourt o f Appe als Tenth Circuit 

### M ar c h 14,2007 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 STEV EN CO RY H A W S, P e tit io n e r - A p p e llan t, v. J E R R Y J O R G E N SE N , W ar den, R es pondent - A ppel l ee. N o. 05- 4141 ( D . U t ah) ( D. Ct . No . 2 : 0 5 - CV - 2 7 4 - DAK)

ORDE R DE NYI NG LE AVE TO P ROCE ED ON APP EAL INF O R M A PA U PER IS , DE NYI NG CE RT I F I CAT E OF AP P EA LA BI LI TY , AN D D I S M I S S I NG AP P L I CA T I ON B efor e HENR Y , B RI S CO E , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui t Judg es.

A ft er exami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det er m i ned unani m ous l y t hat or al ar gum ent w oul d not m at er i al l y as s i s t t he det er m i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. St even CoryH aw s , a s t at e i nm at e appe ar i ng pro se , s eeks a ce r t i fi cat e of 1 a p p e a lab ili ty (C O A ) a llo w in g h im to a p p e a l th e d istric t co u rt’s d e n ial o f h isW e c o n s tru e H aw s ’ n o tic e o f ap p e a l a s are qu e s t f

o r aC O A . F ED . R . A PP . P. 2 2 2 (b )(2 ); H

oxs i e v. Kerby , 108 F. 3d 1239, 1241 ( 10th C ir . 1997)

- 2- pet i t i on for w r i t of habea s cor pus under 28 U . S. C . § 2254. B eca us e he ha s fai l ed 2 t o m ake “ a s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of t he deni al of a c ons t i t ut i onal r i ght ” as r equi r ed by 28 U . S. C . § 2253( c) ( 2) , w e denya C O A and di s m i s s hi s appl i cat i on. I . B ackgr ound I n Sept ember 2000, H aw s w as char ged i n U t ah s t at e cour t w i t h vi ol at i ng Ut a h ’ s Cl a n d e s t i n e Dr u g L a b Ac t , Ut AH C OD E A NN . § 5 8 - 3 7 d - 4 . He fi l e d t wo m ot i ons t o s uppr es s t he s t at ement s he made t o D et ect i ve N at e Thom ps on on t he dat e of hi s ar r es t , ar gui ng D et ect i ve Thom ps on gave i ncompl et e M i r anda w a rn in g s a n d H a w s d id n o t k n o w in g ly , inte lli g e n tlya n d v o lu n tar ilyw a iv e h is F i ft h A m end m ent r i gh t s. T he s t at e cour t deni ed bot h m ot i ons . H aw s pr ocee ded to trial, w h e re h e w a s c o n v icte d . H e w a s s e n ten c e d to n o t les s th a n fiv e y e a rs to l i fe i m pr i s onm ent . H e fi l ed a di r ect appea l , chal l engi ng t he t r i al cour t ’ s deni al of hi s m ot i ons t o s uppr es s . T he U t ah C our t of A ppeal s deni ed r el i ef on M ay15, 2 0 0 3 , a n d t h e Ut a h S u p r e me Co u r t d e n i e d c e r t i o r a r i o n Oc t o b e r 3 0 , 2 0 0 3 . Ha ws di d not fi l e anys t at e pet i t i ons for pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef. O n M ar ch 30, 2005, H aw s fi l ed a pe t i t i on for w r i t of habe as cor pus pur s uant t o 28 U . S. C . § 2254 i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct C our t for t he D i s t r i ct of U t ah al l egi ng vi ol at i ons of hi s Fi ft h and Four t eent h A m endment r i ght s ar i s i ng out of t he s t at e t r i al cour t ’ s deni al s of hi s m ot i ons t o s uppr es s . H ow ever , beca us e t heSee Fratus v. D eLand , 49 F. 3d 673 ( 10th C ir . 1995) ( “U t ah’ s four - y earr es i dual 3 s t atut e of l i m i t ati ons , U t ah C ode A nn. § 78- 12- 25( 3) , governs s ui t s br oughtunder[§] 1 9 8 3 . ”). H aw s neverfi l ed a reques tfora C O A w i th the di s tri ctcourtbutdi d fi l e a noti ce 4 of appe al . “I f an appl i cantfi l es a noti ce of appea l , the di s tri ctj udge w ho r endered the ju d g m e n t m u st e ith e r iss u e ac e rtific ate o f ap p e a lab ilityo r sta te w hyac e rtific ate s h o u ld noti s s ue. ” F ED . R . A PP . P . 2 2 (b )( 1 ). T h e d is tric t c o urtn e v e r ru le do nth e C O A is s u e . W e dee m the di s tri ctcourt ’ s fai lur e to i s s ue a CO A w i thin thirtyday s afterthe fi l ing of the noti ce of

appea las a deni alof the ce rti fi cate. 10 THC IR . R . 2 2 .1 (c ). M o re o v e r, w h ile H aw s ’ noti ce of

appea lw as fi l ed more than thirtyday s afterthe di s tri ctcourt ’ s or der d e nyin g h is p e titio n , s eeF ED . R . A PP . P. 4( a) ( 1) ( A ) , becaus e no s eparat e j udgm entw as ent er ed, the ti m e forfi l i ng an appe aldi d notbegin t o run unti l150 day s afterthe di s tri ct c o urt ’s o rd e r w a s e n te re dinth e c iv il d o c k e t ( A p ri l 2 6 , 2 0 0 5 ), an dh is ap p e a l is tim e ly. F ED . R . C IV . P . 5 8 (a )(1 ), (b )(2 ); F ED . R . A PP . P . 4 (a )(7 )(A )(ii)

- 3- pet i t i on w as s i gned on M ar ch 20, 2005, t he di s t r i ct cour t deemed i t fi l ed on t hat d a te p u rs u a n t to th e p ri s o n e r m a ilb o x ru le . See R ul e 3( d) , R ul es G over ni ng § 2254 C as es . O n A pr i l 25, 2005, t he di s t r i ct cour t deni ed H aw s ’ pet i t i on as u n tim e ly . T h e c o u rt c o n c lu d e d H a w s’ e rro n e o u s b e lief th a t th e fo u r-y e a r sta tu te of l i m i t at i ons for ci vi l r i ght s cas es appl i ed t o habea s cor pus pet i t i ons di d not w ar r ant equi t abl e t ol l i ng. H aw s fi l ed hi s not i ce of appea l on J une 3, 2005. 3 4

I I . D i s cus s i on U nl es s w e i s s ue a CO A , H aw s m aynot appea l t he di s m i s s al of hi s § 2254 pet i t i on. 28 U . S. C . § 2253( c) ( 1) ( A ) . “[Sec t i on] 2253( c) per m i t s t he i s s uance of a C O A onl y w her e a pe t i t i oner has m ade a s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of t he deni al of a cons t i t ut i onal r i ght . ” M ill e r-E l v. C o c k re ll , 537 U . S. 322, 336 ( 2003) ( quot at i ons om i t t ed) . T o m ake t he r equi s i t e s how i ng, a pet i t i oner m us t demonst r at e t hat “r eas onabl e j ur i s t s coul d debat e w het her . . . t he pet i t i on s houl d have be en r es ol vedRu le 1 3 o f th e S up re m e C o urt Ru les re qu ire s ap e titio nf o r w rit o f

c e rtio rari to 5 the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C ourtt o be fi l ed w i thin ninetyday s afterentryof the l ow er court ’ s j udgm ent( i n thi s cas e, ni netyday s afterthe U t ah Supr eme C ourt ’ s deni alof certi or arion O ctober30, 2003) . T hus , H aw s ’ s t at e courtconvi cti on becam e finalon J anuary28, 2004, w hen the ti m e forfi l ing a ce rti or aripeti ti on w i th the U ni t ed St at es S up re m e C o urte xp ir e d . T h is is tru e e v e nth o u g hh e d idn o t f ile ac e rt io rari p e titio n . See 28 U . S. C . § 2244( d) ( 1) ( A ) ( the one- y earl i m i t ati ons peri od s hal lrun from “the date on wh i c hth e j u d g me n tb e c ame f i n a lb yth e c o n c lu s i o no f d ir e c tr e v i e w orthe ex

pirati on of the tim e f

ors eeking s uch review ” ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ); L o c kev . Sa ffle , 237 F. 3d 1269, 1273 ( 10th C i r . 2001) ( “U nder[§ 2244( d) ( 1) ( A ) ] , a peti ti oner ’ s convi cti on i s notfinaland the o n e -ye ar l im ita tio np e ri o df o r f ilin g af e d e ra l h ab e a s p e titio nd o e s n o t b e g into ru nun til . .

. af ter th e U n itedS tat es S up rem e C o urth as d en ied re v iew , o r, if n o p eti ti o nfo r ce rtiorari i s fi l ed, afterthe ti m e forfi l i ng a peti ti on forcerti or ariw i th the Supr eme C ourthas p a s s e d .” ).

- 4- i n a di ffe r ent m anner or t hat t he i s s ues pr es ent ed w er e ade quat e t o des er ve encour agement t o pr ocee d fur t her . ” Id. ( quot at i ons om i t t ed) . “W hen t he di s t r i ct cour t deni es a habe as pet i t i on on pr ocedur al gr ounds . . . , a C O A s houl d i s s ue w hen t he pr i s oner s how s , at l eas t , t hat j ur i s t s of r eas on w oul d fi nd i t debat abl e w het her t he pet i t i on s t at es a val i d cl ai m of t he deni al of a c ons t i t ut i onal r i ght and t hat j ur i s t s of r eas on w oul d fi nd i t debat abl e w het her t he di s t r i ct cour t w as cor r ect i n i t s pr ocedur al r ul i ng. ” Sl ack v . McD ani el , 5 2 9 U . S . 4 7 3 , 4 8 4 (20 0 0 ). W i t h t hes e pr i nci pl es i n m i nd, w e have car eful l y r evi ew ed t he r ecor d and t he d istric t co u rt’s o rd e r. W e a g re e H a w s’ § 2 2 5 4 p e tit io n is u n tim e ly . In g e n e ra l, state pr i s oner s have one - y ear fr om t he dat e t hei r convi ct i ons become fi nal by t he concl us i on of di r ect r evi ew i n w hi ch t o fi l e a ha beas pet i t i on i n fede r al cour t . 28 U . S. C . § 2244( d) ( 1) ( A ) . H er e, H aw s ’ convi ct i on beca m e fi nal on J anuar y 28, 2004, 5 a n d th e o n e y e a r p e ri o d o f lim ita tio n s c o m m e n c e d th e n e x t d a y , J a n u a ry 2 9 , 2 0 0 4 .H aw s d o e s n o t a s s e rtanys tatu to ry b a s is f o r t o llin g . See2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 4 4 (d). 6

- 5- T her efor e, he had up t o and i ncl udi ng J anuar y 29, 2005, i n w hi ch t o fi l e hi s § 2254 p e titio n . See Unit ed S t ates v. Hurst , 3 2 2 F . 3 d 1 2 5 6 , 1 2 6 0 - 6 1 ( 1 0 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 3 ) . He d id n o t file it u n til M a rc h 2 0 , 2 0 0 5 . T h u s, a b se n t eq u itab le to lli n g , h is p e tit io n is u n t i m e l y. 6 E q u itab le to lli n g “ is o n ly a v a ilab le w h e n a n in m a te d ili g e n tlyp u rsu e s h is claim s an d d em o n str ates tha t t h e fail u re to ti m ely fil e w as c au sed b y ex tr ao rdin ary ci r cumst ance s bey ond hi s cont r ol . ” Marsh , 223 F. 3d at 1220. “[I ] gnor ance of t he l aw , even for an i ncar cer at ed pr o s e pet i t i oner , gener al l y does not excus e pr om pt fi l i ng. ” Id. ( quot at i ons om i t t ed) . T he di s t r i ct cour t cor r ect l y found H aw s ’ bel i ef t hat a lo n g e r sta tu te o f

lim itatio n s a p p lied to h a b e a s c o rp u s p e tit io n s d id n o t ex c u se h is l at e fi l i ng. H a w s ’ r e q u e s t fo r a C O A is D E N IE D a n d h is a p p lic a tio n is D IS M IS S E D . E n ter ed b y th e C o u rt: T err ence L. O ’ B ri en U ni t ed St at es C i r cui t J udge