UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT

LORA LEE THOMAS, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, No. 18-5061 

v. (D.C. No. 4:18-CV-59-JED-FHM) 

(N.D. Okla.) 

DEBBIE ALDRIDGE, Warden, 

 Respondent - Appellee. 

ORDER DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AND 

DISMISSING THE APPEAL

Before BACHARACH, MURPHY, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. 

 This appeal involves the dismissal of Ms. Lora Lee Thomas’s habeas 

petition. The district court based the dismissal on timeliness, and Ms. 

Thomas requests a certificate of appealability. We deny her request for a 

certificate because the district court’s dismissal of the petition is not 

subject to reasonable debate. 

To appeal, Ms. Thomas must obtain a certificate of appealability. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). Because the district court relied on timeliness, Ms. 

Thomas must show that the disposition was at least reasonably debatable. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

October 2, 2018

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
2 

See Laurson v. Leyba, 507 F.3d 1230, 1232 (10th Cir. 2007). Ms. Thomas 

has not made this showing. 

A habeas petitioner has one year to file a petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus from a state court judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). The one-year 

period ordinarily begins to run when the petitioner’s conviction becomes 

final. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). 

Ms. Thomas’s conviction became final on March 7, 2016, 90 days 

after the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals had affirmed Ms. Thomas’s 

conviction. Nonetheless, Ms. Thomas waited until January 26, 2018 (over 

22 months after her conviction had become final) to file the habeas 

petition. 

Because Ms. Thomas failed to file her petition within the one-year 

period, she needed to either justify equitable tolling or demonstrate actual 

innocence. Ms. Thomas tried to show both. 

The district court rejected the argument for equitable tolling,

reasoning that Ms. Thomas had failed to show diligent pursuit of her rights 

or an “extraordinary circumstance” that prevented timely filing. See Yang 

v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 928 (10th Cir. 2008) (quoting Lawrence v. 

Florida, 549 U.S. 327, 336 (2007)). On appeal, Ms. Thomas again urges 

equitable tolling, but she does not challenge the district court’s reasoning. 

For example, she does not discuss the district court’s concerns with her 
3 

lack of diligence or the absence of extraordinary circumstances that would 

have prevented timely filing. 

Ms. Thomas instead argues that her constitutional rights were 

violated. But a constitutional violation alone would not justify equitable 

tolling. See Cole v. Warden, 768 F.3d 1150, 1158 (11th Cir. 2014) (“A 

habeas petitioner is not entitled to equitable tolling simply because she 

alleges constitutional violations at her trial or sentencing.”). 

The district court also rejected Ms. Thomas’s argument of actual 

innocence, reasoning that her evidence was not new and would not show 

innocence. On appeal, Ms. Thomas disagrees, but she does not state what 

was wrong with the district court’s analysis. 

* * * 

Ms. Thomas fails to address the district court’s reasoning on 

timeliness. We therefore 

 decline to issue a certificate of appealability and 

 dismiss the appeal. 

 Entered for the Court 

 

 Robert E. Bacharach 

 Circuit Judge