FI LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als

Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### O c t ob e r 3, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT E RI C J OS E P H L AUR S ON,

P e tit io n e r - A p p e llan t, N o. 07- 1177 v. ( D . C ol or ado) R O N L E Y B A , W a rd e n a t A .V .C .F .; AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L OF T HE S T AT E OF CO L OR ADO,

R espon den t s - A pp el l ees. ( D . C . N o . 0 5 - c v - 2 6 3 5 - Z L W)

OR DER DENY I NG CERTI FI CATE O F AP PEALABI LI TY B efor e LU CE RO , HA RTZ , and GORS UCH , C i rcui tJudg es. E r i c J os eph Laur s on i s an i nm at e i n the cus t odyof the C ol or ado D epart m entof C orr ect i ons . T he U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe D i s tr i ctof C ol or ado di s m i s s ed hi s appl i cat i on forr el i ef unde r28 U . S. C . § 2254 as barr ed by the one- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons i m pos ed bythe A nt i t err or i s m and Effec t i ve D e a th P e n a lty A c t ( A E D P A ). See 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 4 4 (d)(1 ). T h e d istri ct co u rt d en ied tw o m o ti o n s fo r reco n side rati o n u n d er F ed . R . C iv. P. 60 (b). W e cons true M r. L au rson ’s appl i cat i on fora ce r t i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i ty( C O A ) under 28 U . S. C . § 2253 as r eques t i ng a C O A t o appea l both the di s m i s s al of hi s § 2254M r . L aur s on’ s att empt t o appea l the di s m i s s al of hi s § 2254 appl i cat i on 1 a p p e a rs to b e u n tim e ly. A lth o u g h th is is a ju ri s d ic tio n a l m a tte r, s ee Bow l es v. R u ss e ll , 1 2 7 S . Ct . 2 3 6 0 , 2 3 6 3 ( 2 0 0 7 ) , we n e e d n o ta d d r e s s th e i s s u e b e c a u s e we are r efusi ng t o take j uri sdi ct i on on othergroun ds. -2- a p p lic a tio n a n d th e d e n ia l o f h is tw o m o tio n s to re c o n s id e r t h e d is m is s a l. 1 B eca us e no “j ur i s t [] of r eas on coul d concl ude thatthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al on pr ocedur al gr ounds w as debat abl e ori ncorr ect , ” Slack v . McD ani el , 52 9 U. S. 4 7 3 , 4 8 5 (20 0 0 ), w e d en ya C O A an d d ism iss th e m att er. I . BA CKGROUND M r. L a u rso n p lea d e d g u iltyto a c h a rg e o f so licita tio n to c o m m it m u rd e r in th e s e c o n d d e g re e . H i s convi ct i on w as ent er ed J anuary8, 1999. H e di d not appea l the convi ct i on, buti n D ece m ber2001 he fi l ed i n s t at e courta mot i on for pos t convi ct i on r el i ef, w hi ch w as deni ed. T he C ol or ado C our tof A ppeal s aff i r m ed th e d e n ia l, P eopl e v. Laurs on , 70 P. 3d 564 ( C ol o. C t . A pp. 2002) , and the C ol or ado Supr eme C our tdeni ed hi s pet i t i on fora w r i tof ce r t i or ar i on J une 16, 2003. O n D ece m ber28, 2005, M r . L aur s on fi l ed a pr o s e appl i cat i on forr el i ef u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 . T h e m a g istra te ju d g e o rd e re d h im to sh o w c a u se w h yh is a p p l i c a t i o n s h o u l d n o tb e b a rr e d b yth e o n e - y e a rl i mi t a t i o n p e r i o d o f 2 8 U. S . C. § 2 2 4 4 (d). M r. L au rson fa il ed to resp o n d to the o rde r, an d the d istri ct co u rt di s m i s s ed hi s appl i cat i on on M ar ch 14, 2006. O ne y earl at er , on M ar ch 14, 2007, M r. L a u rso n filed a m o tio n fo r re lief u n d e r R u le 6 0 (b ), alle g in g th a t h e h a d tim e ly-3-

s oughtan ext ens i on t o r es pond t o the s how - caus e or derbuthad mi s t akenl yfi l ed th e m o tio n w ith th e w ro n g c a s e n u m b e r. H e att ache d t o the mot i on a copyof the m ot i on forext ens i on thathe had a t t empt ed t o fi l e and a copyof hi s pr opos ed ans w ert o the or dert o s how caus e. T he court , fi ndi ng thatther e w as no e x tra o rd in a ryc irc u m sta n c e to ju stif yR u le 6 0 (b ) re lief, d e n ied th e m o tio n to re c o n s id e r o n M a rc h 2 3 , 2 0 0 7 . M r . L aur s on fi l ed a s econd Rul e 60( b) m ot i on on A p ri l 1 0 , 2 0 0 7 , s e e k in g re c o n s id e ra tio n o f th e M a rc h 2 3 o rd e r. T he courtrul ed thateven a cce pt i ng M r . L aur s on’ s excus es forhi s fai l ur e t o r es pond t i m el yt o the s how - caus e or der , hi s r es pons e t o the s how - caus e or derdi d notes t abl i s h thathe w a s e n title d to e q u ita b le to llin g o f th e s ta tu te o f

lim ita tio n s . C oncl udi ng thatthe a c tio n w a s p ro p e rl yd is m is s e d a s tim e -b a rr e d , th e c o u rt d e c lin e d to is s u e a C O A . I I . DI S CU S S I ON A C O A w i l l i s s ue “onl yi f the appl i canthas m ade a s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of the d en ial o f a co n sti tuti o n al ri g h t. ” 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 3 (c)(2). T h is st an d ard re q u ire s “ a d e m o n stra tio n th a t . . . inc lu d e s s h o w in g th a t re a so n a b le ju rists c o u ld debat e w hether( or , forthatm att er , agr ee that ) the pet i t i on s houl d have be en re so lv e d in a d iffe re n t m a n n e r o r th a t th e iss u e s p re se n ted w e re a d e q u a te to des erve enc our agementt o pr ocee d fur ther . ” Slack , 529 U . S. at484 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . I n otherw or ds , an appl i cantm us ts how thatthe di s tr i ct court ’ s r es ol ut i on of the cons t i tut i onal cl ai m w as ei ther“deba t abl e orw r ong. ” Id . If the ap pli cat i on w as denied on proced ural groun ds, as here, the ap pli cant faces a-4-

doubl e hur dl e. N otonl ym us tthe appl i cantm 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 , buthe mustal s o s how “thatj ur i s t s of r eas on w oul d fi nd i tdebat abl e w hether. . . the di s tr i ctcourtw as corr ecti n i t s pr ocedur al ru lin g .” Id. “ W h e re a p lain p ro c e d u ra l b a r is p re se n t an d th e d istric t co u rt is corr ectt o i nvoke i tt o di s pos e of a cas e, a r eas onabl e j ur i s tcoul d notconcl ude ei therthatthe di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n di s m i s s i ng the pet i t i on orthatthe pet i t i oner s houl d be al l ow ed t o pr ocee d fur ther . ” Id. A E D PA es t abl i s hes a one- y earl i m i t at i ons per i od forchal l engi ng a s t at ecourtconvi ct i on. See 28 U . S. C . § 2244( d) . I ti s undi s put ed thatthe l i m i t at i ons p eriod b eg an to ru n w h en the tim e fo r see k ing d ir ec t r ev iew o f M r. L au rson ’s J a n u a ry 1 9 9 9 c o n v ic tio n e x p ir e d in e a rl y1 9 9 9 . See C ol o. A pp. R . 4( b) ( 1) ( pr ovi di ng 45 day s t o appea l convi ct i on) . A l though the one- y earper i od i s t ol l ed w h ile s ta te p o s tc o n v ic tio n re v ie w is p e n d in g , s ee 28 U . S. C . § 2244( d) ( 2) , the oney earper i od had l ong expi r ed befor e M r . L aur s on fi l ed fors t at e pos t convi ct i on re lie f in D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 1 . T h e o n e -y e a r sta tu te o f lim itatio n s is n o t ju risd ictio n a l an d c a n b e e q u itab ly t ol l ed, butequi t abl e t ol l i ng i s l i m i t ed t o “r ar e and e xcept i onal ci r cumst ance s . ” G i bs on v. K l i nger , 232 F. 3d 799, 808 ( 10th C i r . 2000) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . M r . L aur s on as s ert s tw o gr ounds forequi t abl e t ol l i ng; nei theri s val i d. F irst, M r. L a u rso n a lleg e s th a t h e is e n tit led to e q u itab le to lli n g b e c a u se h is dy s l exi a del ay ed hi s fi l i ng forr el i ef. H e r ai s es thi s ar gum entforthe fi r s tt i m e on-5-

a p p e a l. A s a g e n e ra l ru le , th is c o u rt w ill n o t c o n s id e r a n is s u e n o t r a is e d b e lo w . See Walkerv. Mather (In r e Walker ) , 959 F. 2d 894, 896 ( 10th C i r . 1992) . B ut even i f M r . L aur s on had notfor fei t ed thi s ar gum entbyfai l i ng t o pr es enti tt o the di s tr i ctcourt , dy s l exi a i s nota gr ound fort ol l i ng the A E D PA s t atut e of lim ita tio n s . See Turne rv. Johns on , 177 F. 3d 390, 391–92 ( 5th C i r . 1999) (un fa m il iari tyw ith the law d u e to ill it era cyd o es n o t t o ll li m it ati o n s p eriod ); Jam is on v. Jones , 197 Fed. A pp’ x 743, 746 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( unpubl i s hed) ( fol l ow i ng Turne r ); G om ezv. Leyba , N o . 0 7 -11 1 8 , 2 0 0 7 W L 1 7 6 5 5 3 6 (10 th C ir . J une 20, 2007) ( unpubl i s hed) ( unfami l i ar i tyw i th the Engl i s h l anguage does not to ll l im itatio n s p e rio d ); Uni t ed Stat es v. R i char ds on , 2 1 5 F . 3 d 1 3 3 8 (10 th C ir . 2000) ( unpubl i s hed dec i s i on t abl e) ( l earni ng di s abi l i tydoes nott ol l l i m i t at i ons p eriod ). Second, M r . L aur s on cont ends thathe i s ent i t l ed t o equi t abl e t ol l i ng b e c a u se h e is a c tu a lly in n o c e n t o f th e c rim e o f w h ich h e w a s c o n v icte d . A c laim o f a c tu a l in n o c e n c e m a yto ll th e A E D P A s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s . See G i bs on , 232 F. 3d at808. M r . L aur s on offe r s thr ee r eas ons w hyhe i s actual l yi nnocent : ( 1) th a t th e c rim e o f

w h ich h e w a s c o n v icte d d o e s n o t ex ist in C o lo ra d o , (2 ) th a t h is g u iltyp lea w a s in v o lu n tar yd u e to b o th th e n o n e x iste n c e o f h is c rim e a n d h is dy s l exi a, and ( 3) thathi s s ent ence exce eded the perm i s s i bl e s t atut oryr ange a nd that hi s cr i m e had been placed i n the w rong fel on ycl ass for s entenci ng . T he fir st is a q u e s tio n o f

s ta te la w th a t is n o t r e v ie w a b le u n d e r § 2 2 5 4 . See Es t el l e v.-6-

McG uir e , 5 0 2 U .S . 6 2 , 6 8 (1 9 9 1 ); D ocki ns v. Hi nes , 3 7 4 F . 3 d . 9 3 5 , 9 4 0 (10 th C ir . 2004) ( “Feder al habea s court s w i l l not. . . r evi ew i s s ues of pur el ys t at e l aw . ”) M r . L aur s on’ s otherar gum ent s do notr el at e t o actual i nnocenc e. A ctual i nnocenc e means “fa ctual i nnocenc e. ” See Bousley v . Uni t ed Stat es , 52 3 U. S. 614, 623 ( 1998) . A cl ai m thathi s gui l typl ea w as i nvol unt arydoes notas s ertthat h e d id n o t com m itthe c ri m e to w h ich h e p lead ed g u il ty . A n d as to M r. L au rson ’s ar gum entthathi s s ent ence w as i m pr oper , “a pe r s on cannotbe ac tual l yi nnocentof a noncapi t al s ent ence . ” R e i dv . Ok la h o ma , 101 F. 3d 628, 630 ( 10th C i r . 1996) (bra ck ets an d interna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). N o re a so n a b le ju rist c o u ld d isp u te th a t th e d istric t co u rt w a s c o rre c t to d i s mi s s M r . L a u r s o n ’ s a p p l i c a t i o n a s t i me - b a rr e d . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we d e n ya CO A to a p p e a l th e d ism iss a l. M r. L a u rso n a lso re q u ire s a C O A to a p p e a l th e d e n ials o f h is tw o R u le 6 0 (b ) m o tio n s . See Spi tz nas v. B oone , 464 F. 3d 1213, 1218 ( 10th C i r . 2006) (“ [ W ]e c o n c lu d e th a t a C O A is re q u ire d to a p p e a l f ro m th e d e n ial o f

a tru e R u le 60( b) m ot i on. ”) . T he di s tr i ctcourtdi s m i s s ed M r . L aur s on’ s habea s appl i cat i on as barr ed bythe s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons aft erhe fa i l ed t o r es pond t o the or dert o s how caus e. E ven i f M r . L aur s on coul d j us t i fyhi s fai l ur e t o r es pond t o the or der , the courtw as corr ectt o denythe 60( b) m ot i ons unl es s M r . L aur s on pr es ent ed a m er i t or i ous ar gum entforw hyhi s habea s appl i cat i on s houl d notbe di s m i s s ed as-7-

ti m e-b arred in the firstp lace . F o r th e re aso n s d iscu ssed ab o v e, M r. L au rson ’s a rg u m e n ts fo r e q u itab le to lli n g lac k m e rit. W e conc l ude thatr eas onabl e j ur i s t s w oul d notdebat e the corr ectnes s of the d istri ct co u rt ’s pro ce d u ral ruli n g s. A cc o rdin g ly , w e D E N Y M r. L au rson ’s ap p li ca ti o n fo r a C O A an d D IS M IS S this m att er. W e G R A N T M r. L au rson ’s m ot i on t o pr ocee d in fo rm a p a up e ris . ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT H a rris L H a rtz C i r cui tJ udge