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

### A u gu s t30,2007 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 DAR RY L RA Y C ONL E Y, P e tit io n e r - A p p e llan t, v. M I K E M U L L I N , W ar den, R es pondent- A ppel l ee. N o. 07- 6046 ( D. C. No . 0 5 - CV- 0 1 3 8 1 - R) (W .D . O k la .)

ORDE R DE NYI 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. D arry l C on l ey , an O klahom a st at e pri soner proceed i ng pro se, seeks a cert i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i t y( “C O A ”) t o appea l t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of hi s 28 U . S. C . § 2254 habea s pet i t i on. B eca us e C onl eyw ai ved hi s r i ghtt o appea l by fai l i ng t o t i m el yobj ectt o t he magi s tr at e j udge’ s r ecomm endat i on, w e DE NY a C O A and D I SM I SS . C onl eyw as convi ct ed bya j uryon one counteac h of fi r s t - degr ee r ape, r ape byi ns t rum ent at i on, and s exual batt ery . A tt r i al , t he St at e pr es ent ed t es t i m ony fr om the vi ct i m t hatC onl eyhad fl agged he rovert o the s i de of the r oad w hi l e s he w as dr i vi ng hom e fr om chur ch. C onl eyt ol d the vi ct i m t hats om ethi ng w as w r ong w i t h one of he rt i r es and offer ed t o hel p di agnos e the s uppos ed pr obl em byr i di ngC onl ey ’ s habea s pet i t i on cl ai m ed that : ( 1) H i s r i ghtt o s el f- r epr es ent at i on 1 wa s v i o l a t e d ; ( 2 ) He h a d r e c e i v e d i n e ffe c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f t r i a l c o u n s e l ; ( 3 ) He had r ece i ved i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of appe l l at e couns el ; ( 4) T he tr i al courtdeni ed h im d u e p ro c e ss a s th e c u m u lativ e re su lt o f a lleg e d lye rro n e o u s ru lin g s a t trial; (5 ) T h e se a rc h w a rra n t u se d to o b tain h is b lo o d w a s in v a lid ; (6 ) T h e S tate w i t hhel d excul pat or yevi dence ; ( 7) H i s C onfr ont at i on C l aus e r i ght s w er e vi ol at ed; ( 8) T he vi ct i m ’ s i n- cour ti dent i fi cat i on of C onl eyw as i m perm i s s i bl ys ugges t i ve; ( 9) T he evi dence w as i ns uffi ci entt o s uppor ta convi ct i on; ( 10) H e w as arr es t ed a n d h e ld w ith o u t a w a rra n t fo r fif tee n d a y s in v io latio n o f th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t; ( 11) T he St at e us ed an “ evi dent i aryharpoon” byal l egedl ys ugges t i ng thathe had c o m m itt e d a p rio r c rim e ; an d (1 2 ) T h e ju ryin stru c tio n s w e re p reju d icia l. - 2 - in h er ca r. C o n ley then rap ed h er. T h e S tat e p rese n ted e v iden ce that C o n ley ’s D N A m at ched a s w ab t aken f r om t he vi ct i m ata hos pi t al aft ert he r ape. B as ed on C onl ey ’ s s t atus as a tw o- t i m e pr i orfel onyoffe nder , t he s t at e tr i al c o u rt s e n te n c e d h im to c o n s e c u tiv e s e n te n c e s o f e ig h ty y e a rs o n e a c h c o u n t. C o n ley’s su b se q u e n t ap p e a ls to th e O k lah o m a C o u rt o f C rim in a l A p p e a ls a n d h is pet i t i on fors t at e pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef w er e deni ed. C onl eyt hen fi l ed a t i m el yhabea s pet i t i on i n the W es t ern D i s tr i ctof O kl ahoma r ai s i ng t w el ve s epar at e gr ounds forr el i ef. U pon r efe rr al fr om t he 1 di s t r i ctcourt , a magi s t r at e j udge i s s ued an e xhaus t i ve 68- page Repor tand R ecomm endat i on advi s i ng di s m i s s al of C onl ey ’ s habea s pet i t i on. B as ed on C o n ley’s fa ilu re to file o bjec tio n s to th e R e p o rt a n d R e c o m m e n d a tio n d e sp ite o b tai n ing rep ea ted e x tens ion s, the d istri ct co u rtad o p ted th e m ag istrate’s r e c o mm e n d a t i o n i n f

u l l a n d d i s mi s s e d t h e p e t i t i o n . Co n l e yn o w s e e k s a CO AB eca us e the di s t r i ctcourtdeni ed C onl eya C O A , he maynotappea l t he 2 d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n a b s e n ta g r a n to f COA b yt h i s c o u r t . 2 8 U. S . C. § 2253( c) ( 1) ( A ) . A C O A m aybe i s s ued “onl yi f the appl i canthas m ade a su b sta n tial sh o w in g o f th e d e n ial o f

a c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t.” § 2 2 5 3 (c )(2 ). T h is r equi r es C onl eyt o s how “thatr eas onabl e j ur i s t s coul d debat e w hether( or , fort hat m at t er , agr ee that ) t he pet i t i on s houl d have be en r es ol ved i n a di ffe r entm anneror t hatthe i s s ues pr es ent ed w er e ade quat e t o des erve enc our agementt o pr ocee d fur t her . ” Sl ack v. M cD ani el , 529 U . S. 473, 484 ( 2000) (q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ). - 3 - fro m this co u rt to ap p ea l the d istri ct co u rt ’s jud g m en t. In h is ap p li ca ti o n fo r a 2 C O A , he r ai s es , i n gener al t erm s , eac h of the s ame t w el ve cl ai m s pr es ent ed t o t he d istric t co u rt. W e adhe r e t o a “f

i r m w ai verrul e” thatpr ecl udes both l egal and fa ctual re v iew o f

iss u e s a d d re ss e d in a m a g istra te ju d g e ’s r e p o rt a n d re c o m m e n d a tio n to w hi ch a pa r t yhas fai l ed t o r ai s e t i m el yobj ect i ons . M oor e v. U ni t ed St at es , 950 F. 2d 656, 659 ( 10t h C i r . 1991) . T hi s rul e appl i es t o pr o s e appl i cant s onl yw hen th e m a g istra te ju d g e h a s p ro v id e d c lea r n o tice th a t a fa ilu re to tim e lyo bjec t w ill w ai ve thatpart y ’ s r i ght s on appea l . I d. In h is R e p o rt a n d R e c o m m e n d a tio n , the m a g istra te ju d g e u n a m b ig u o u sly “advi s ed [Conl ey ] of hi s r i ghtt o fi l e an obj ect i on t o [the] R eportand R ecomm endat i on . . . on orbefor e O ct ober24, 2006. ” C onl eyw as fur ther

“ a d v ise d th a t fa ilu re to file a tim e lyo bjec tio n . . . w a iv e s th e rig h t to a p p e llate r evi ew of both fac tual and l egal i s s ues cont ai ned her ei n. ” G i ven thatC onl ey fai l ed t o fi l e obj ect i ons byJ anuary15, 2007— the l as tdayof the fi nal ext ens i on- 4 -

gr ant ed byt he di s t r i ctcour t

— he has w ai ved hi s r i ghtt o chal l enge the m a g istra te’ s re c o m m e n d a tio n o n a p p e a l. C onl eyur ges t hi s cour tt o nonethel es s cons i derhi s ar gum ent s i n the i nt er es t s of j us t i ce. B eca us e the w ai verrul e i s pr ocedur al r atherthan j ur i s di ct i onal , w e mayi ndeed de cl i ne t o appl ythe rul e i n cas es “w her e the i nt er es t s of j us t i ce s o di ct at e. ” M oor e, 950 F. 2d at659. I n r eac hi ng s uch a d eterm ination this co u rth as c o n side red , am o n g o ther fac tors, the w aivin g p arty ’s ow n r es pons i bi l i t yfort he fa i l ur e t o fi l e obj ect i ons . See W i r s chi ng v. C ol or ado, 3 6 0 F . 3 d 1 1 9 1 , 1 1 9 7 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). In h is m e m o ra n d u m a d d re ss in g th e w a iv e r iss u e , C o n ley av e rs g e n e ra lly that “fo rce s o f n ature ” p rev en ted h im fro m fil ing o bjecti o n s an d that w e the refo re s houl d cons i der hi s fai l ur e t o fi l e excus abl e negl ect . C onl eyappar ent l yar gues t hatdue t o an i ce s t or m , he had no a cce s s t o pr i s on admi ni s tr at i ve per s onnel b e tw e e n Ja n u a ry1 2 , 2 0 0 7 , an d Ja n u a ry2 2 , 2 0 0 7 , an d th u s c o u ld n o t file h is obj ect i on pr i ort o t he J anuary15, 2007, deadl i ne. B utas t he di s tr i ctcourtnot ed i n decl i ni ng t o m odi fyi t s or derdi s m i s s i ng the pet i t i on, [ p ]e titio n e r’ s o bje c tio n w a s o ri g in a lly d u e O c to b e r 2 4 , 2 0 0 6 . Pet i t i oners oughtand w as gr ant ed thr ee e xt ens i ons of t i m e i n w hi ch to file h is o bje c tio n to th e R e p o rt a n d R e c o m m e n d a tio n . . . . Pet i t i oner ’ s m ot i on foran emer gencyext ens i on of t i m e w as noteven ma i l e d u n t i l fo u rd a y s a f t e rh i s o bj e c t i o n wa s d u e . E v e n n o w, P e tit io n e r d o e s n o t p re se n t an o bjec tio n a n d re q u e st le a v e to file it o u t o f tim e ; ra th e r, h e a sk s fo r a p p o in tm e n t o f c o u n se l to a ss ist h im i n pr epar i ng an obj ect i on.- 5 -

G i ven thatC onl eyhad al r eadybeen gr ant ed 63 day s bey ond the or i gi nal 2 0 -d a yo bjec tio n p e rio d , an ice sto rm d o e s n o t ju stif yh is fa ilu re to file t i m el yobj ect i on s. W e al s o r evi ew t he di s t r i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on forpl ai n err or . See M o ra les -F e rn a n d e z v . IN S , 4 1 8 F .3 d 1 1 1 6 , 1 1 2 2 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). “P lain e rro r o c c u rs w h e n th e re is (1 ) e rro r, (2 ) th a t is p lain , w h ich (3 ) a ffe c ts s ubs t ant i al r i ght s , and w hi ch ( 4) s er i ous l yaffect s the fa i rnes s , i nt egr i ty , or p u b lic re p u ta tio n o f

th e ju d ic ia l p ro c e e d in g s .” Id . (q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ). H avi ng car eful l yr evi ew ed C onl ey ’ s pl eadi ngs , the r ecor d on appea l , and t he magi s t r at e j udge’ s t hor ough R eportand R ecomm endat i on, w e conc l ude t hatt he di s t r i ctcourtdi d notcomm i tpl ai n err orw hen i tdet erm i ned thatthe s t at e courtadj udi cat i on di d not“r es ul t [] i n a dec i s i on thatw as contr aryt o, o ri n v o l v e [ ] a n u n r e a s o n a b l e a p p l i c a t i o n o f, c l e a r l ye s t a b l i s h e d fe d e r a l l a w” or“r es ul t [] i n a dec i s i on t hatw as bas ed on an unr eas onabl e det erm i nat i on of the fa ct s i n l i ghtof evi dence pr es ent ed i n the St at e courtpr ocee di ng. ” 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 4 (d). F o r th e re a so n s s e t fo rth a b o v e , C o n ley’s re q u e st fo r a C O A is DE NI ED and his app eal i s DI S M I S S ED . W e GR ANT h is m o tio n to pr ocee d i n form a paupe r i s , and w e D I SM I SS hi s m ot i on forappoi nt m entof- 6 -

c o u n se l as m o o t. ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT

C arlos F . L u ce ro C i r cui tJ udge