Pro sep le a d in g sare lib e ra lly c o n s tru e d . L e db e tte rv . Cityo f T o p eka, Ka n ., 318 1 F . 3 d1 1 8 3 , 1 1 8 7 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). 

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

### N ove m b e r13,2006 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

__________________________ DE NNI S NE AL CL AR K, P e tit io n e r - A p p e llan t, v. S T AT E OF OKL AHOMA, R es pondent- A ppel l ee. N o. 06- 6046 ( W . D . O kl ahoma) ( D. Ct . No . 0 5 - CV- 1 2 8 5 - C)

____________________________ ORDE R DE NYI NG LE AVE TO P ROCE ED ON APP EAL INF O R M A PA U PER IS , DE NYI NG CE RT I F I CAT E OF AP P EA LA BI LI TY , AN D D I S M I S S I NG AP P L I CA T I ON B efor e HENR Y , B RI S CO E , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es.

A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F ED . R. A PP . P. 34( a) ( 2) ; 10 TH C IR . R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. D enni s N eal C l ark, a s t at e pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pro se , file d a 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 5 4 m o ti o n to v ac ate, set aside o r co rrect his sen tenc e. T h e d istri ct co u rt di s m i s s ed the mot i on, concl udi ng i tw as unt i m el yunder28 U . S. C . § 2244( d) ( 1)“I f an appl i cantfi l esa noti ce of appeal , the di s tri ctj udge w ho rendered the 2 ju d g m e nt mu st e ith e r iss u eac e rtific ate o f ap p e a lab ility[ C O A ] o r state w hyac e rtific ate s houl d noti s s ue. ” F ED . R . A PP . P . 2 2 (b)(1 ). T h e d istri ct co urtdid n o t act onC lark’s cons tructive reques tfora C O A . A C O A i s deemed deni ed i f the di s tri ctcourtdoesnot addres s the i s s uanceof a CO A w ithin thirtydays . 10 TH C IR . R. 2 2 . 1 (C ).

- 2- w hi ch cont ai ns a one- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons . C l ark t hen fi l ed a not i ce of appea l and an a ppl i cat i on t o pr ocee d in fo rm a p a u p e ris ( ifp ) . T he courtdeni ed 2 hi s m ot i on t o pr ocee d ifp , cert i fy i ng t he appe al w as nott aken i n good fai t h under 28 U . S. C . § 1915( a) ( 3) beca us e hi s appl i cat i on t o appea l fai l ed t o gi ve a r eas oned nonfr i vol ous ar gum enton t he l aw and s uppor t i ng fac t s as t o w hyt he di s m i s s al of h is h a b e a s p e titio n w a s in c o rr e c t. See 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (a )(3 ); F ED . R . A PP . P. 24( a) ( 3) . I n t hi s C our t , C l ark r eques t s a C er t i fi cat e of A ppeal abi l i t y( C O A ) and agai n s eeks l eave t o pr ocee d i f p. See 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 (c )(1 )(B ); F ED . R . A PP . P. 2 2 (b)(1 ), 2 4 (a)(5). B ackgr ound C lark’s h ab ea s p eti ti o n stem s fro m fo u r st ate c ase s. In o n e c ase , a jury convi ct ed C l ark of tw o count s . H e then pl ed gui l t yt o t hr ee otherpendi ng cas es p u rsu a n t to a p lea a g re e m e n t. O n D e c e m b e r 2 0 , 2 0 0 2 , h e w a s s e n ten c e d to tw e n ty y ear s i m pr i s onm entfort he cha r ges on w hi ch the j ur yfound hi m gui l t y . A tt he s ame t i m e, pur s uantt o t he pl ea a gr eement , t he courts ent ence d hi m on t he re m a in in g c h a rg e s, ru n n in g a ll se n ten c e s c o n c u rre n tly . C lar k d id n o t m o v e to w i t hdr aw hi s gui l t ypl eas , fi l e a di r ectappea l , ors eek a w r i tof ce r t i or ar i fr om t he- 3-

U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our t . A s a r es ul t , the j udgm ent s on C l ark’ s convi ct i ons b e c a m e fin a l te n d a y s la te r, D e c e m b e r 3 0 , 2 0 0 2 . O K LA . S TAT . T IT . 2 2 ,§ 1501; O K LA . C R IM . A PP . R . 2. 5( A ) & 4. 2( A ) . C l ark fi l ed hi s habea s pet i t i on i n fede r al cour ton N ovember3, 2005. B eca us e the pet i t i on w as s i gned on O ct ober31, 2005, t he di s t r i ctcour tdeemed i tfi l ed on thatdat e pur s uantt o t he pr i s oner m a ilb o x ru le . F ED . R. A PP . P . 4 (c). C e rtifica te o

f Ap p e a la b ili ty 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 . Mi l l er - E lv. C o c kre ll, 53 7 U . S . 32 2, 33 6 (200 3). W e w i l l i ssue a C O A on l yi f C l ark m akes 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. . . t he pet i t i on s houl d have be en r es ol ved [byt he di s t r i ct cour t ] i n a di ffe r entm annerort hatt he i s s ues pr es ent ed w er e ade quat e t o des erve encour agementt o pr ocee d fur t her . ” S la c kv . McD a n iel, 529 U . S. 473, 484 ( 2000) ( quot at i ons om i t t ed) . I ns ofaras t he di s t r i ctcour tdi s m i s s ed C l ark’ s habea s pet i t i on on pr ocedur al gr ounds , C l ark m us tdemonstr at e both t hat“j ur i s t s of r eas on w oul d fi nd i tdebat abl e w hethert he pet i t i on s t at es a val i d cl ai m of the 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 fin d it d e b a tab le w hethert he di s t r i ctcour tw as corr ecti n i t s pr ocedur al rul i ng. ” Id . “W her e 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 c o rre c t to in v o k e it t o di s pos e of the ca s e, a r eas onabl e j ur i s tcoul d notconcl ude ei t hert hatt he di s t r i ct- 4-

c o u rt e rre d in d ism iss in g th e p e tit io n o r th a t th e p e tit io n e r sh o u ld b e a llo w e d to pr ocee d fur t her . ” Id. W e r evi ew t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs forcl ear err or and it s l egal conclusi on s de novo . E ngl is h v. C ody, 241 F. 3d 1279, 1282 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). B ec au se C lark’s p eti ti o n w as fil ed o n O ctob er 3 1 , 2 0 0 5 , alm o st tw o y ea rs aft erhi s convi ct i on beca m e fi nal , hi s pet i t i on i s unt i m el yabs ents t atut or yor e q u i t a b l e t o l l i n g . Cl a r k c l a i ms s t a tu t o r yt o l l i n g . S e c t i o n 2 2 4 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) ( B) a l l o ws t he l i m i t at i on per i od t o begi n as of “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 bySt at e ac t i on i n vi ol at i on of the C ons t i tut i on orl aw s of the U n ited S tate s is re m o v e d , if th e a p p lica n t w a s p re v e n ted f ro m fili n g b ysu c h S tate act i on. ” C l ark cl ai m s t hi s pr ovi s i on s houl d t ol l t he s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons beca us e, pur s uantt o hi s pet i t i on on N ovember19, 2003, t he s t at e w as or der ed t o pr ovi de re c o rd s to h im in o rd e r t h a t h e m ig h t file a n a p p lic a tio n fo r p o s t- c o n v ic tio n re lie f. A lth o u g h th e sta te m a d e so m e re c o rd s a v a ilab le a fe w d a y s la ter , itd id n o t f u lly r es pond unt i l J anuary27, 2005. T hus , he conc l udes t he s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons s houl d run fr om t hatdat e. A s the d i stri ctcou rtfou nd , t his provis i on i s unav ai l i ng for C l ark becau se he fa i l ed t o expl ai n w hyt he document s hel d byt he s t at e w er e nec es s aryt o pur s ue hi s fede r al cl ai m and he a l s o di d nots how di l i gentpur s ui tof hi s cl ai m s even a ft er re c e iv in g th e m a te ri a l. Mi l l er v. Marr , 141 F. 3d 976, 978 ( 10 C i r . 1998) th ( “[Pet i t i oner ] has pr ovi ded no s peci fi ci t yr egar di ng t he al l eged l ack of acc es s and- 5-

th e ste p s h e to o k to d ili g e n tlyp u rsu e h is fe d e ra l cla im s.” ); see also Marsh , 223 F .3 d a t 1 2 2 0 . W e a g re e w ith th e d is tr ic t c o u rt . A s an al t ernat i ve, C l ark i m pl i ci t l yr ai s es 28 U . S. C . § 2244( d) ( 2) , w hi ch p ro v id e s: “ T h e tim e d u rin g w h ich a p ro p e rlyfiled a p p lica tio n fo r S tate pos t - convi ct i on orot hercol l at er al r evi ew w i t h r es pectt o t he pert i nentj udgm ent orcl ai m i s pendi ng s hal l notbe count ed t ow ar d anyper i od of l i m i t at i on under t hi s s ubs ect i on. ” 28 U . S. C . § 2244( d) ( 2) . C l ark concl udes t he t i m e l i m i t at i ons s houl d be t ol l ed unt i l t he dat e hi s s t at e pos t - convi ct i on pr ocee di ngs t erm i nat ed, A ugus t31, 2005. H ow ever , hi s appl i cat i on fors t at e pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef w as n o tfi l e d u n t i l F e b ru a r y2 2 , 2 0 0 5 , e v e n t h o u g h i ti s b a s e d o n h i s Ok l a h o ma convi ct i ons w hi ch bec ame fi nal on D ece m ber30, 2002. O nl ys t at e pet i t i ons for pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef f i l ed w i t hi n t he one y earal l ow ed byA E D PA w i l l t ol l t he s ta tu te o f

lim ita tio n s . S e e B u rg e r v . Sc o tt , 3 1 7 F . 3 d 1 1 3 3 , 1 1 3 6 -37 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ); R e ddv . Mc G ra th , 3 4 3 F .3 d 1 0 7 7 , 1 0 8 4 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). C lar k ’s 2 0 0 5 sta te filin g s w e re n o t “ p ro p e rl yfile d ” a n d d o n o t to ll h is fe d e ra l c la im . Si nce ne i t herof C l ark’ s s t atut or yt ol l i ng ar gum ent s have mer i t , hi s pet i t i on is tim e lyo n lyif

w e a p p lye q u itab le to lli n g , a re m e d ysu itab le o n lyin “extr aor di naryci r cumst ance s . ” Marsh , 2 2 3 F .3 d a t 1 2 2 0 . C lar k m u st s h o w b o th e x tra o rd in a ryc irc u m sta n c e s p re v e n tin g tim e lin e ss a n d d ili g e n t p u rsu it o f h is c la im . Mi l l er, 141 F. 3d at978. W e agr ee w i t h t he di s t r i ctcour tt hatC l ark has fa iled to m e e t h is b u rd e n u n d e r e ith e r o f th e se re q u ire m e n ts. T h e p ro p rie tyo f its- 6-

d is m is s a l o f

h is p e titio n is n o t r e a s o n a b ly d e b a ta b le . Sl ack, 5 2 9 U .S . a t 4 8 4 . C la rk h a s fa ile d to m a k e a s u ffic ie n t s h o w in g th a t h e is e n title d to a C O A . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we d e n yh i s r e q u e s tfo ra CO A. I FP A f te r r e v ie w in g C la rk ’s c o n te n tio n s w e c o n c lu d e , a s d id th e d is tr ic t c o u rt , th a t th is a p p e a l is n o t ta k e n in g o o d fa ith . C oppedge v. United S tates , 36 9 U. S. 438, 446 ( 1962) . H i s m ot i on t o pr ocee d ifp is d e n ied . C lar k is re q u ire d to im m e d iate lyre m it th e f u ll am o u n t o f

th e fili n g fe e . W e re m in d h im o f h is obl i gat i on t o payt he fi l i ng fee even though hi s r eques tfora C O A has been d e n ie d . See Ki nnel lv. G r aves , 265 F. 3d 1125, 1129 ( 10t h C i r . 2001) ( di s m i s s al of an a ppeal does notr el i eve a ppel l antof the obl i gat i on t o payt he appe l l at e fi l i ng fe e in f u ll ). Cl a r k ’ s a p p l i c a t i o n s a r e DI S M I S S E D. 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