T hi s or deri s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, * re s ju d ica ta, a n d c o llate ra l es to p p e l. 

## F I LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### Ju n e 9, 2006 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 J I M M Y HA RKER, P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, v. N o. 06- 4053 C L I N T FR I E L , W ar den, R es pondent - A ppel l ee. ( D. C. No . 2 : 0 5 - CV- 8 3 4 - TC) ( D . U t ah)

OR DER * B efor e H E N R Y , B R I S C O E , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es. J i m m yH arker , a U t ah pr i s onerappea r i ng pr o s e, s eeks a ce r t i fi cat e of a p p e a la b ility (C O A ) i n o rd e r t o c h a lle n g e th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s d is m is s a l o f h is 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 h a b e a s p e tit io n o n sta tu te o f lim itatio n s g ro u n d s. B e c a u se H a rk e r h a s f a iled to m a k e “ a s u b s ta n tia l s h o w in g o f th e d e n ia l o f

a c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t,” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 (c)(2), w e d en yh is r eq u est an d d ism iss th e m att er. I. O n O ct ober31, 1996, H arkerpl ed gui l tyi n U t ah s t at e courtt o one countof m ur der and one c ountof att empt ed aggr avat ed murde rand w as s ent ence d t o a l engthyt erm of i m pr i s onm ent . H arkerdi d notfi l e a di r ectappea l . O n N ovember4, 1997, H arkerfi l ed an-2-

a p p lica tio n f

o r sta te p o st-c o n v ictio n re lief c h a llen g in g b o th h is g u iltyp lea a n d h is s ent ence . T he s t at e di s tr i ctcourtul t i m at el ydeni ed hi s appl i cat i on on February13, 2004, a n d H a rk e r d id n o t a p p e a l f ro m th a t d e n ia l. N ear l ytw entym onths l at er , on O ct ober4, 2005, H arkerfi l ed a pe t i t i on forfede r al h a b e a s re lief

p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 , ch a llen g in g th e c o n stitu tio n a lityo f h is convi ct i ons and s ent ence . T he magi s tr at e j udge as s i gned t o the ca s e, aft err evi ew i ng H a rk e r’s p e tit io n , issu e d a n o rd e r d ire c tin g H a rk e r to sh o w c a u se w h yh is p e tit io n sh o u ld notbe di s m i s s ed as unt i m el y . H arkerr es ponded byfi l i ng a one- page pl eadi ng as s ert i ng that( a) hi s caus e of a ct i on w as “mer i t or i ous , ” ( b) he w as “unver s ed i n the l aw , ” and ( c) he “ve r i l ybel i eve[ d] thatthe courts houl d deci de th[e] cas e bas ed on the r ecor d and the m er i t s of the ca s e. ” The di s tr i ctcourts ubs equent l ydi s m i s s ed H arker ’ s pet i t i on as unt i m el y . I n doi ng s o, the di s tr i ctcourtconcl uded thatH arker ’ s al l eged i gnor ance of the l aw di d notent i t l e hi m t o equi t abl e t ol l i ng of the appl i cabl e one- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i on s. II. A s not ed, H arkerhas now fi l ed an appl i cat i on forC O A w i th thi s court . “A cert i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i tym ayi 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 deni al of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght . ” 28 U . S. C . § 2253( c) ( 2) . “W hen the di s tr i ctcourtdeni es a habe as pet i t i on on pr ocedur al gr ounds w i thoutr eac hi ng the pri soner’ s und erl y i ng con st i tuti on al cl ai m , a C O A shou l d is sue w hen the p ri soner show s, a t lea st, th a t ju rists o f

re a so n w o u ld f

in d it d e b a tab le w h e th e r th e p e tit io n sta tes a v a lid-3-

c laim o f th e d e n ial o f

a c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t an d th a t ju rists o f re a so n w o u ld f

in d it debat abl e w hetherthe di s tr i ctcourtw as corr ecti n i t s pr ocedur al rul i ng. ” Sl ack v. M cD an iel , 5 2 9 U . S . 4 7 3 , 4 8 4 (20 0 0 ). Pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . 2244( d) ( 1) , “[a ] 1- y earper i od of l i m i t at i on s hal l appl yt o an appl i cat i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus bya per s on i n cus t odypur s uantt o the j udgm entof a St at e court . ” The one- y earl i m i t at i on per i od runs “fr om the l at es tof” the fol l ow i ng dates : ( A ) the dat e on w hi ch the j udgm entbeca m e fi nal bythe conc l us i on of di r ect r e v i e w o rth e e x p i r a t i o n o f th e t i me f

o rs e e k i n g s u c h r e v i e w; ( B ) the dat e on w hi ch the i m pedi m entt o fi l i ng an appl i cat i on cr eat ed by S tate a c tio n in v io latio n o f th e C o n stitu tio n o r la w s o f th e U n ited S tate s is r emoved, i f the appl i cantw as pr event ed fr om fi l i ng bys uch St at e ac t i on; (C ) th e d a te o n w h ich th e c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t as se rte d w a s in iti a lly r ecogni zed bythe Supr eme C our t , i f the r i ghthas been ne w l yr ecogni zed by the Supr eme C our tand made r etr oact i vel yappl i cabl e t o cas es on col l at er al r evi ew ; or ( D ) the dat e on w hi ch the fa ctual pr edi cat e of the cl ai m orcl ai m s pr es ent ed coul d have be en di s cover ed thr ough the exe r ci s e of due di l i gence . Id . T h e ru n n in g o f

th e lim itatio n s p e rio d is to lled f o r “ [ t]h e tim e d u rin g w h ich a p ro p e rly fi l ed appl i cat i on forSt at e pos t - convi ct i on orothercol l at er al r evi ew w i th r es pectt o the p e rt in e n t ju d g m e n t o r c la im is p e n d in g . . . .” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 (d )( 2 ). W e agr ee w i th t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s appl i cat i on of thes e pr ovi s i ons t o H arker ’ s cas e, i n c l u d i n g i t s c o n c l u s i o n th a tHa r k e r ’ s f e d e r a l h a b e a s p e t i t i o n wa s u n t i me l yf i l e d . As not ed bythe di s tr i ctcourt , H arker ’ s s t at e convi ct i ons beca m e fi nal , and i n turn the one--4-

y earl i m i t at i ons per i od forfi l i ng a fe der al habea s pet i t i on began t o run, on N ovember30, 1996, the dat e on w hi ch hi s t i m e forfi l i ng a di r ectappea l expi r ed. O n N ovember4, 1997, aft er339 day s had expi r ed, H arkerfi l ed an appl i cat i on fors t at e pos t - convi ct i on re lief , w h ich to lled th e ru n n in g o f th e sta tu te o f

lim itatio n s u n til M a rc h 1 4 , 2 0 0 4 , the d a te o n w h i c h H a r k e r ’ s t i m e f o ra p p e a l i n g th e d e n i a l o f s u c h r e l i e f

e x p i r e d . T w e n ty- s i x d a ys l at er , on A pr i l 9, 2004, the one- y earl i m i t at i ons per i od forfi l i ng a fe der al habea s pet i t i on e n d e d . H a rk e r d id n o t f ile h is f e d e ra l h a b e a s p e tit io n u n til O c to b e r 4 , 2 0 0 5 , n e a rlytw e n ty m o n th s la te r, a n d w e ll b e y o n d th e o n e -ye a r s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s . W e al s o agr ee w i th t he di s tr i ctcourtthatH arkerfai l ed t o es t abl i s h anybas i s for e q u i t a b l e t o l l i n g . Al th o u g h Ha r k e ra s s e r t e d b e l o w th a th e wa s “ u n v e r s e d i n th e l a w, ” we hav e con si st entl yheld that i gn orance o f t he law do es not excuse an i ncarcerat ed p ro se p e tit io n f ro m p ro m p tlyse e k in g f e d e ra l h a b e a s re lief

, an d th u s d o e s n o t ju stif ye q u itab le t ol l i ng of the one- y earl i m i t at i ons per i od. See M ar s h v. Soar es , 223 F. 3d 1217, 1220 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). T he r eques tfora C O A i s D E N I E D , the mot i on t o pr ocee d I FP i s D E N I E D , and the m a tte r i s D IS M IS S E D . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt M aryB eck Bri s coe C i r cui tJ udge