P ro se p le a d in g s a re lib e ra lly c o n s tru e d . Ledbet t erv. C i t y of Topeka, 1 Ka n ., 3 1 8 F . 3 d 1 1 8 3 , 1 1 8 7 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). FI LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als

Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### S e p t e m b e r 6, 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 RO Y E AS T E RWOOD,

P e tit io n e r - A p p e llan t, N o. 06- 7115 v. E . D . O kl a. ST E V E N B E C K , W ar den of the M ack A lfo rd C o rrecti o n al C en ter,

D efe ndant- A ppel l ee. ( D . C. N o. 04 - CV - 00 37 0- FH S)

OR DE R D E NY I NG CERTI FI CATE O F AP PEALABI LI TY AN D D I S M I S S I NG AP P L I CA T I ON B efor e KELLY , M UR P HY , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es.

Pet i t i onerR oyE as t erw ood, a s t at e pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pro se , fi l ed a 1 28 U . S. C . § 2241 pet i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus att acki ng the exe cut i on of hi s s ent ence . T he di s tr i ctcourtdi s m i s s ed the pet i t i on as unt i m el yunderthe A nt i t err or i s m and Effec t i ve D eath Penal tyA ct ' s ( A E D PA ) one- y earl i m i t at i ons p e r i o d . E a s t e rwo o d th e n fi l e d a r e q u e s tfo ra c e r t i fi c a t e o f a p p e a l a b i l i ty( CO A) and t o pr ocee d in fo rm a p a up e ris ( ifp ) on appea l . T he di s tr i ctcourtgr ant ed E as t erw ood’ s m ot i on t o pr ocee d ifp butdeni ed a CO A . H e r enew s hi s r eques tfor-2-

C O A in this C o u rt . P u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 3 , w e d en yE asterw o o d ’s appl i cat i on fora ce r t i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i tyand di s m i s s hi s appl i cat i on. I . Backg r ound I n D ece m ber1979, E as t erw ood w as convi ct ed of f i r s tdegr ee mur deri n the D i s tr i ctC our tforC hoct aw C ounty , O kl ahoma and s ent ence d t o l i fe im p ri s o n m e n t, a n in d e te rm in a te s e n te n c e ra th e r t h a n a c e rt a in n u m b e r o f y e a rs . In 1 9 9 7 , O k lah o m a a ttem p ted to re v a m p its c rim in a l sta tu tes th ro u g h th e T ru th in S en tenc ing A ct. T h e A ct crea ted m atri ce s d esc ri b ing the p u n ishm en t fo r ev ery cr i m i nal vi ol at i on. R el evantt o thi s cas e, Schedul e A defi ned l i fe i m pr i s onm ent as “i m pr i s onm entfora per i od of notl es s than ei ght een ( 18) y ear s norm or e than si xty(60) y ears . . . . ” O klahom a T ruth in Sen t encing A ct , 19 97 O kla. S ess. L aw s , 1 R eg. Ses s . , 133 § 4( 6) ( t o be codi fi ed atO kl a. St at . t i t . 21 § 14( 6) ( 1997 S u p p ).) T h e A c t w a s re p e a le d b e fo re it w a s to ta k e e ffe c t. A n d e rs o n v . S ta te , 130 P .3 d 2 7 3 , 2 8 1 n .1 9 (O k la . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ). I n 2001, the O kl ahoma l egi s l atur e pas s ed amendm ent s t o s ever al s t atut es d e a lin g w ith p a rd o n s a n d p a ro le . See e . g. O kl a. St at . t i t . 57 § 332. 7. T he a m e n d m e n ts re fe rr e d to th e m a tr ic e s fo r t h e p u rp o s e o f p a ro le c a lc u la tio n s . E as t erw ood cl ai m s thes e r efe r ence s “r evi ved” the mat r i ces as l aw , notonl yfor p a r o l e p u rp o s e s , b u ta l s o t o ma k e h i s fo r me r l yi n d e t e r mi n a t e s e n t e n c e n o w a sen tenc e fo r a c ertain a m o u n t of y ea rs. T h u s, ac co rdin g to E asterw o o d ’sW h ile E a ste rw o o d re c o g n ize s O k la. S tat. tit . 5 7 § 1 3 8 sp e c ifica lly 2 pr ohi bi t s the appl i cat i on of ea rned cr edi t s t o r educe a l i fe s ent ence , E as t erw ood appar ent l ybel i eves thi s pr ovi s i on w as r epea l ed su b sile n tio bythe 2001 am end m ents . -3- c a lcu latio n s, h is tim e se rv e d c o m b in e d w ith h is e a rn e d c re d it d a y s re q u ire s h is 2 im m e d ia te re le a s e . O n A ugus t23, 2004, E as t erw ood fi l ed the i ns t antpet i t i on fora w r i tof h a b e a s c o rp u s, a lleg in g h e h a d c o m p lete d h is s e n ten c e a n d re q u e stin g im m e d iate r el eas e. T he di s tr i ctcourtdi s m i s s ed hi s cl ai m s concl udi ng theyw er e t i m e- barr ed b yth e o n e -y e a r sta tu te o f lim itatio n s. 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 ; S e e B u rg e r v . S c o tt , 317 F .3 d 1 1 3 3 , 1 1 3 8 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ) (a p p ly in g th e § 2 2 4 4 lim itatio n s p e rio d to cl ai m s ar i s i ng under§ 2241) . Pet i t i ons fora w r i tof habe as corpus m us tbe fi l ed w i thi n one y earof ce r t ai n dat es , i ncl udi ng “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 ex erc ise o f d u e d il igen ce . ” 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 4 4 (d)(1 )(D ). T h e d istri ct co u rt det erm i ned the pr ovi s i ons of the O kl ahoma 2001 T ruth i n Sent enci ng A cti nvoked byE as t erw ood pr ovi ded the “factual pr edi cat e” forhi s cl ai m s . B eca us e he f i l ed hi s pet i t i on m or e than one y earaft erthe s t atut es w enti nt o effecton J ul y1, 2001, hi s pet i t i on w as unt i m el y . T he di s tr i ctcourtal s o di s m i s s ed East erw ood’ s s econd c laim in w h ich h e a rg u e d th e sta te fa iled to c o m p lyw ith O k lah o m a p o stconvi ct i on pr ocedur es , as i tw as pur el ya mat t erof s t at e l aw and i n habea s pr ocee di ngs , w e “a r e l i m i t ed t o deci di ng w hethera convi ct i on vi ol at ed the-4-

C ons t i tut i on, l aw s , ortr eat i es of the U ni t ed St at es . ” E st el l e v. M cG uire , 502 U . S. 62, 68 ( 1991) . E as t erw ood now s eeks perm i s s i on fr om thi s C our tt o pr ocee d w ith h is a p p e a l. II. C er ti fi ca te o f A p p ea lab il it y A C O A is a ju ri s d ic tio n a l p re -r e q u is ite to o u r r e v ie w . M i l l er - E l v. C o c k re ll, 537 U . S. 322, 336 ( 2003) . W e w i l l i s s ue a CO A onl yi f East erw ood m a k e s 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 ). T o m a k e th is s h o w in g , h e m u st e sta b lish th a t “r e a so n a b le ju rists coul d debat e w hether. . . the pet i t i on s houl d have be en r es ol ved [bythe di s tr i ct court ] i n a di ffe r entm annerorthatthe i s s ues pr es ent ed w er e ade quat e t o des erve encour agementt o pr ocee d further . ” S la c kv . M c D a n iel, 529 U . S. 473, 484 ( 2000) ( quot at i ons om i t t ed) . I ns ofaras the di s tr i ctcourtdi s m i s s ed hi s habea s pet i t i on on pr ocedur al gr ounds , E as t erw ood m us tdemonstr at e both that“j ur i s t s of r eas on w oul d fi nd i tdebat abl e w hetherthe pet i t i on s t at es a val i d cl ai m of the deni al of a cons t i tut i onal r i ghtand thatj ur i s t s of r eas on w oul d fi nd i tdebat abl e w hetherthe di s tr i ctcourtw as corr ecti n i t s pr ocedur al rul i ng. ” Id . “W her e a pl ai n pr ocedur al b a r i s p re s e n t a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u rt is c o rr e c t to in v o k e it to d is p o s e o f th e c a s e , a re a so n a b le ju rist c o u ld n o t co n c lu d e e ith e r th a t th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in di s m i s s i ng the pet i t i on orthatthe pet i t i oners houl d be al l ow ed t o pr ocee d fur ther . ” Id. W e re v iew th e d istric t co u rt’s fa c tu a l fin d in g s fo r c lea r e rro r a n d its-5-

l egal conclusi on s de novo . E ngl i s h v. C ody, 2 4 1 F . 3 d 1 2 7 9 , 1 2 8 2 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). E as t erw ood cl ai m s the di s tr i ctcourterr oneous l yappl i ed the one- y ear sta tu te o f

lim itatio n s to h is c laim . T h e tim e lin e ss iss u e w a s ra ise d b yth e S tate in its re sp o n se to E a ste rw o o d ’s h a b e a s p e tit io n . In h is re p ly , E a ste rw o o d a rg u e d h is s i tu a t i o n r e n d e r s th e s t a tu t e o f l i mi t a t i o n s i n a p p l i c a b l e t o h i s c l a i m fo rtwo r eas ons . H e cont ended the appl i cat i on of the t i m e- barvi ol at es the Sus pens i on C l aus e, U . S. C ons t . art . I , § 9, cl . 2, the C ons t i tut i on' s pr ohi bi t i on on s us pendi ng th e w rit. In th e a ltern a tiv e , h e a ss e rte d a n ylim itatio n s p e rio d sh o u ld b e e q u itab ly t ol l ed. T he di s tr i ctcourtdi d notaddr es s thes e ar gum ent s i n i t s or derdi s m i s s i ng E as t erw ood’ s pet i t i on. H ow ever , the ar gum ent s ar e notper s uas i ve. E as t erw ood fi r s tpos i t s the appl i cat i on of the one- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons t o hi s cl ai m s cons t i tut es a vi ol at i on of the s us pens i on cl aus e bec aus e he i s not att acki ng hi s convi ct i on. “W hetherthe one- y earl i m i t at i on per i od vi ol at es the Suspe ns i on C l aus e depe nds upon w hetherthe l i m i t at i on per i od r ender s the habe as re m e d y‘in a d e q u a te o r in e ffe c tiv e ’ to tes t th e leg a lityo f d e ten tio n . T h e b u rd e n is on the pet i t i onert o demonstr at e i nadequa cyand i neffect i venes s . ” M i l l er v. M arr , 1 4 1 F .3 d 9 7 6 , 9 7 7 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 8 ) (c itatio n s o m itt e d ). E a ste rw o o d fa ils th is bur den bec aus e he ha s decl i ned t o pr ovi de the bene fi tof ar gum entorl egal author i tyforthi s pr opos i t i on. “W e do notcons i deruns uppor t ed and unde vel oped i s s ues . ” M oor e v. G i bs on , 1 9 5 F .3 d 1 1 5 2 , 1 1 8 0 n .1 7 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ).-6-

E as t erw ood nexts ugges t s the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons s houl d notbe appl i ed b e c a u s e th e re a s o n s u s u a lly a s s o c ia te d w ith th e n e e d fo r fin a lity d o n o t e x is t h e re . H o w e v e r, h e c ites n o leg a l p re c e d e n t w h ich rejec ts a c lea r C o n g re ss io n a l m a n d a te forthe t i m e l i m i t at i on of a c l ai m m er el ybeca us e a c our tdet erm i nes the s i tuat i on d o es n o t fi t gen era l con side rati o n s o f finality . T h e U n it ed S tat es S u p rem e C o u rt has “expr es s ed a c l eardefe r ence t o the rul es thatC ongr es s has fas hi oned conce rni ng habea s . ” M i l l er , 141 F. 3d at978. E as t erw ood al s o cl ai m s the O k lah o m a B o a rd o f

P a rd o n a n d P a ro le’ s tw o -y e a r d e lay i n p ro m u lg a tin g ru les in acc or dance w i th the Truth i n Sent enci ng A cts ugges t s w e s houl d cons i der2003 as the fa ctual pr edi cat e forhi s cl ai m s . C ons equent l y , hi s pet i t i on w oul d be c o n sid e re d tim e lyfiled . H o w e v e r, E a ste rw o o d m a k e s n o a ttem p t to d e m o n stra te the pr om ul gat i on of rul es had anyeffect , l etal one ca us e a de l ay , pr event i ng the tim e ly f ilin g o f h is p e titio n . Fi nal l y , E as t erw ood cl ai m s he i s ent i t l ed t o equi t abl e t ol l i ng. “To be ent i t l ed t o equi t abl e t ol l i ng, [East erw ood] m us ts how ‘ ( 1) thathe has been pur s ui ng hi s r i ght s di l i gent l y , and ( 2) thats om e extr aor di naryci r cumst ance s t ood i n hi s w ay ’ and pr event ed t i m el yfi l i ng. ” Law r ence v. F l or i da, 127 S. C t . 1079, 1085 ( 2007) ( quot i ng P ace v . D i G ugl i el m o, 5 4 4 U .S . 4 0 8 , 4 1 8 (2 0 0 5 )) .

“ [ E ]q u itab le to lli n g sh o u ld n o t b e u se d to th w a rt th e in ten tio n o f C o n g re ss in es t abl i s hi ng a s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons forhabea s cl ai m s . A ccor di ngl y , w e have-7-

l i m i t ed equi t abl e t ol l i ng of the one- y earl i m i t at i ons per i od t o ‘ r ar e and exce pt i onal ’ ci r cumst ance s . ” B urger , 317 F. 3d at1141. E as t erw ood poi nt s t o thr ee fact or s t o demonstr at e the equi t i es favor cons i der at i on of hi s cas e. Fi r s t , he ar gues hi s cl ai m i s aki n t o a cl ai m of “a ctual i nnocenc e” be caus e a s ucce s s ful r es ul ton hi s cl ai m w i l l r ecogni ze he “has sat i sfi ed the ob l i gati on on his sent ence, and i s curr entl yi nn ocen tof an yoffense thatr equi r es hi s cont i nued i m pr i s onm ent . ” ( R . V ol . I , T ab 9 at5. ) E as t erw ood fai l s t o r ecogni ze he i s chal l engi ng hi s s ent ence , nothi s gui l t . “‘ A per s on cannot be ac tual l yi nnocentof a nonc api t al s ent ence . ’ ” R ei d v. Stat e of O kl a. , 101 F. 3d 628, 630 ( 10th C i r . 1996) ( quot i ng Unit ed S tates v. R i cha rds, 5 F. 3d 1369, 1371 ( 10th C i r . 1993) ) . E as t erw ood w as convi ct ed of f i r s tdegr ee mur derand se n ten c e d to life im p riso n m e n t. H is s itu a tio n h a s n o t ch a n g e d . E v e n if w e d id equat e hi s s ent enci ng cl ai m w i th actual i nnocenc e, E as t erw ood m us ts t i l l s how d ilig e n t p u rs u it o f

h is ri g h ts o r e x tr a o rd in a ry c ir c u m s ta n c e s . H e h a s n o t d o n e s o . Second, he cl ai m s the s t at e has cons i s t ent l yas s ert ed the mat r i x never beca m e l aw . H e ar gues thi s pos i t i on m i s l ed hi m s om ehow and ther efor e he s houl d notbe pena l i zed forbel i evi ng thes e pena l “expe r t s . ” ( R . V ol . I , D oc. 5 at 6. ) H e ar gues the r es ul ti s “the s t at e ca n i m pr i s on s om eone i ndefi ni t el yas l ong as theykeep them i gnor ant , confus ed and mi s l ed foratl eas ta y ear . ” ( Id . at 5 .) T h is ar gum enti s eas i l yr ej ect ed. E as t erw ood does notexpl ai n how he l earned of the sta te’ s p o sitio n p rio r to f ili n g h is p e tit io n n o r d o e s h e id e n tifya n yin sta n c e in-8-

w h ic h s ta te o r p ri s o n o ffic ia ls m is le d h im o r k e p t h im ig n o ra n t o r c o n f u s e d . A dver s e pos i t i ons i n l egal pr ocee di ngs ar e har dl yextr aor di naryci r cumst ance s s uffi ci entt o equi t abl yt ol l a fi l i ng deadl i ne. Fi nal l y , E as t erw ood cl ai m s w e s houl d fi nd ther e ar e r ar e and e xcept i onal c irc u m sta n c e s in th is c a se b e c a u se n o o th e r in m a te h a s m a n a g e d to in iti a te “pr ocee di ngs of equa l s t atur e t o Pet i t i oner ’ s theor i es [. ] ” ( Id . at 6 .) W e d e c lin e to comm enton the “s t atur e” of E as t erw ood’ s theor i es otherthan t o s ayhe has fai l ed to d em o n str ate jurist s o f re aso n w o u ld find itd eb atab le w h ethe r th e d istri ct co u rt w as corr ecti n i t s pr ocedur al rul i ng. E a ste rw o o d ’s r e q u e st fo r a C O A is DENI ED and hi s appl i cat i on DI S M I S S ED . E n ter ed b y th e C o u rt: T err ence L. O ’ B ri en U ni t ed St at es C i r cui tJ udge