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

### F eb ru ary21,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C lerk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT RUS S EL L E UGENE BI S NER, P e tit io n e r - A p p e llan t, v. L O W E L L C L A R K , W ar den, R es pondent- A ppel l ee. N o. 06- 4234 ( D . C. N o. 2: 06 - CV - 41 7- TS)

( D . U t ah)

ORDE R DENYI NG CERTI FI CATE O F AP PEALABI LI TY B efor e KELLY , M UR P HY , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es. R u ss e ll E u g e n e B isn e r, a s tate in m a te a p p e a rin g p ro se , se e k s a c e rtific a te of appe al abi l i ty( C O A ) s o thathe mayappea l fr om the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of hi s habea s pet i t i on fi l ed pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2254. I n hi s pet i t i on, M r . B i s ner ra ise s c laim s o f

in e ffe c tiv e trial a n dap p e llate c o u n se l, pr o se c u to ria l m isc o n d u c t, a n dd u e p ro c e ss v io latio n s. T h e d istric t co u rt h e ldth a t th e p e tit io n w a s u n tim e ly and thatM r . B i s nerw as notent i t l ed t o equi t abl e t ol l i ng. B ecaus e M r . B i s nerhas fa il ed to d em o n str ate tha t i t i s rea so n ab lyd eb atab le w h ethe r th e d istri ct co u rt ’s pr ocedur al rul i ng di s m i s s i ng hi s pet i t i on i s corr ect , s ee Sl ack v. M cD ani el , 529 U .S . 4 7 3 , 4 8 4 (2 0 0 0 ), w e d e n ya C O A a n dd ism iss th e ap p e a l. M r. B isn e r w a s c o n v icte do f first-d e g re e m u rd e r a n da g g ra v a ted ro b b e ryin- 2 -

U tah sta te c o u rt a n dth o se c o n v ictio n s w e re a ffirm e do n d ire c t ap p e a l. S e e S tate v. B i s ner , 37 P. 3d 1073 ( U t ah 2001) . R ehear i ng w as deni ed on J anuary3, 2002, a n dth e c o n v ictio n s b e c a m e fin a l o n A p ril 3 , 2 0 0 2 , the las t d a yo n w h ich h e c o u ld have f i l ed a c ert i or ar i pet i t i on w i th the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C ourt . See 28 U . S. C . § 2244( d) ( 1) ( A ) ; C l ayv. U ni t ed St at es , 537 U . S. 522, 527- 28 ( 2003) (a d d in g 9 0 -d a yp e ri o din w h ic h d e fe n d a n t c o u ld s e e kc e rt io ra ri ); S u p . C t. R . 1 3 .3 (tim e to file a c e rtio ra ri p e tit io n ru n s f ro m th e d e n ial o f

re h e a rin g ). A s a re su lt, M r . B i s nerhad one- y earfr om A pr i l 3 i n w hi ch t o fi l e hi s fede r alhabea s pet i t i on, butthe one- y earper i od coul d be t ol l ed dur i ng the pende ncyof a pr oper l yfi l ed sta te p o st-c o n v ictio n m o tio n . 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 (d )(1 )(A ), (d )(2 ). M r. B isn e r d id notfi l e s uch a mot i on unt i l 198 day s ( fr om A pr i l 3, 2002 t o O ct ober18, 2002) a f terh is c o n v ictio n s b e c a m e fin a l. O n O c to b e r 1 8 , 2 0 0 2 , M r. B isn e r filed a sta te mo t i o n fo rp o s t - c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f, wh i c h u l t i ma t e l ye n d e dwh e n th e Ut a h S u p r e me C ourtdeni ed ce rt i or ar i on M ay24, 2005. See B i s nerv. St at e, 123 P. 3d 815 ( U t ah 2005) ( T abl e) . M r . B i s nerdi d notfi l e hi s fede r al pet i t i on unt i l M ay19, 2006, s om e 360 day s aft erthe deni al of hi s m ot i on fors t at e pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef beca m e fi nal . C ons equent l y , 558 day s ( 198 added t o 360) pas s ed betw een the t i m e M r . B i s ner ’ s s t at e convi ct i ons beca m e fi nal and the t i m e he f i l ed hi s fede r al habea s pet i t i on. B ecaus e thi s pas s age of t i m e w el l exce eds the appl i cabl e oney ea r st atute o f li m it ati o n s, the d istri ct co u rtw as c o rrect i n co n clud ing that M r. B i s n e r ’ s p e t i t i o n w a s u n t i m e l y.- 3 -

In addit i on t o arguing thathis peti t i on w as t i m el yfi l ed, M r. B i sner al so ar gues forequi t abl e t ol l i ng bas ed on the fa ctthathe l acke d a l aw l i br ary , l egal tr ai ni ng, and know l edge of the l i m i t at i ons per i od, and had onl yl i m i t ed as s i s t ance fr om pr i s on contr actatt orney s . W e have l i m i t ed equi t abl e t ol l i ng of the one- y ear li m it ati o n s p eriod to “ra re a n dex ce p ti o n al” c ir cu m stan ce s. G ibso n v . K li n g er, 232 F. 3d 799, 808 ( 2000) . I n G i bs on, w e expl ai ned: E qui t abl e t ol l i ng w oul d be appr opr i at e, forexampl e, w hen a pr i s oner i s actual l yi nnocent , w hen an a dver s ary ’ s conduct

— orother uncontr ol l abl e ci r cumst ance s — pr event s a pr i s onerfr om t i m el yfi l i ng, or w hen a pri soner act i velypu rs ues j ud i ci al rem edies bu tfi l es a d e fe c tiv e p lea d in g d u rin g th e sta tu to ryp e rio d . S im p le e x c u sa b le negl ecti s nots uffi ci ent . M or eover , a pet i t i onerm us tdi l i gent l ypur s ue hi s fede r al habea s cl ai m s ; a cl ai m of i ns uffi ci entacc es s t o r el evant l aw , s uch as A E D PA , i s notenough t o s upportequi t abl e t ol l i ng. I d. ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons om i tt ed) . M r . B i s nerhas nots how n thatanyof the thr ee ci r cumst ance s di s cus s ed i n G i bs on, oranys i m i l arci r cumst ance s , exi s t . A nd the r eas ons M r . B i s neroffe r s forequi t abl e t ol l i ng ar e s i m pl yi nadequa t e. See i d. (h o ld in g p e tit io n e r’s a lleg e dig n o ra n c e o f A E D P A ’s s tatu te o f

lim itatio n s is i ns uffi ci entt o w arr antequi t abl e t ol l i ng) ; M ar s h v. Soar es , 223 F. 3d 1217, 1220- 21 ( 10th C i r . 2000) ( hol di ng del ay s caus ed bypr i s on i nm at e l aw cl erk and l aw l i br arycl os ur es do notj us t i fyequi t abl e t ol l i ng) ; M i l l erv. M arr , 141 F. 3d 976, 9 7 8 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 8 ) (“ It is n o t en o u g h to sa yth a t th e . . . fa c ili tylac k e da ll re lev a n t sta tu tes a n dc a se law o r th a t th e p ro c e d u re to re q u e st s p e c ific m a ter ials w as in ad eq u ate.”).- 4 -

W e D E N Y a C O A , an dD IS M IS S th is a p p e a l. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt P au l J. K ell y , Jr. C i r cui tJ udge