T hi s or deri s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of * th e c a se , res ju d ica ta a n d c o llate ra l es to p p e l. Itm a yb e c ited , h o w e v e r, fo r its per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t entw i t h Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1. A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and the appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s t hr ee-j udge ** panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notbe of mat er i al a s s is ta n c e in th e d e te rm in a tio n o f th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a u 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. 

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

### Ju ly17,2007 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 L AR RY P AUL T AF OYA,

P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, N o. 06- 2275 v . (D . o f N .M .) J AM E S J ANE CK A,

R es pondent - A ppel l ee. ( D. C. No . CI V 0 6 - 3 6 0 - J H)

OR DER DENY I NG CERTI FI CATE O F AP PEALABI LI TY * B efor e HENR Y , TY M KOVI CH , and HO LM ES , C i rcui tJudg es. ** L arr yPaul T afoy a, a N ew M exi co s t at e pr i s onerpr ocee di ng thr ough couns el , appea l s t he di s t r i ctcourt ’ s deni al of hi s fede r al habea s pet i t i on under28 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 4 as w ell as th at co u rt ’s su b seq u en t den ial o f h is r eq u est fo r a C er t i fi cat e of A ppeal abi l i t y( C O A ) . B eca us e w e conc l ude thatT afoy a has not s at i s fi ed the r equi s i t e s t andar d of a “ s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of the deni al of aT h e fa c ts o f th a t ca se , n o t re lev a n t to th e in sta n t ap p e a l, are laid o u t in 1 th e N e w M e x ic o S u p re m e C o u rt ’s u n p u b lis h e d o p in io n , Stat e v. Taf oya , N o. 2 7 ,3 5 4 , J u n e 3 0 , 2 0 0 4 . -2- c o n s t i tu t i o n a l r i g h t , ” we d e n yCOA a n d d i s mi s s th i s a p p e a l . 2 8 U. S . C. § 2 2 5 3 (c )(2 ); Mill e r-E l v. C o c kre ll , 5 3 7 U . S . 3 2 2 , 3 2 7 (20 0 3 ). I . Backg r ound I n N ovember2001, a j ur yconvi ct ed Tafoy a of M ur deri n the Fi r s tD egr ee (D epraved M i nd ), L eaving t he S cene o f an A cci den tInvolvi ng D eat h, R eckles s Dr i v i n g , a n d Dr i v i n g W h i l e Li c e n s e S u s p e n d e d . Th e Ne w M e x i c o S u p r e me 1 C our taff

i r m ed the convi ct i on i n J une 2004. I n J ul y2005, T afoy a fi l ed the fi r s tof tw o p e titio n s fo r p o s t- c o n v ic tio n re lie f in s ta te c o u rt . B o th p e titio n s w e re d e n ie d . T afoy a fi l ed hi s fede r al habea s pet i t i on i n M ay2006. T he magi s tr at e j udge re c o m m e n d e d th e p e tit io n b e d e n ied , am o n g o th e r re a so n s, o n th e g ro u n d s it exce eded the one- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons i m pos ed byt he A nt i t err or i s m and E ffe ct i ve D eath Penal t yA ct( A E D PA ) , w hi ch governs t hi s appea l . T he m agi s t r at e j udge aggr egat ed al l t he per i ods of unt ol l ed t i m e thathad pas s ed s i nce T afoy a’ s convi ct i on beca m e fi nal i n J une 2004 and found t he aggr egat e s urpas s ed one y ear . A ddi t i onal l y , t he magi s tr at e j udge conc l uded Tafoy a’ s pet i t i on i ncl uded unexha us t ed cl ai m s and, t hus , w as pr ocedur al l ybarr ed. A ft er cons i der i ng T afoy a’ s obj ect i ons t o the magi s tr at e j udge’ s r eportand r ecomm endat i on, t he di s t r i ctcourtadopt ed the r ecomm endat i on and deni ed the pet i t i on forr el i ef.In m a k in g h is c a se to th e m a g istra te ju d g e , T a fo y a “ fa iled to re sp o n d to 2 t he [] ar gum entt hatt hi s Pet i t i on i s t i m e- barr ed. ” M ag. J . R & R at10. T he m agi s t r at e j udge furt herconcl uded that“ther e w er e no fa ct s i n the Pet i t i on ort he E xhi bi t s t hats ugges tt hatt he doctr i ne of e qui t abl e t ol l i ng w oul d be appl i cabl e. ” Id . W e agr ee. -3- O n a p p e a l, T a fo y a d o e s n o t d isp u te th a t h is h a b e a s p e tit io n w a s u n tim e ly underA E D PA . I ns t ead, he as ks thi s cour tt o appl ypr i nci pl es of equi t abl e t ol l i ng i n o rdert o b ypass the st atute of l i m i t at i on s. 2 I I . St andard of R evi ew

“ A n o rd e r d ism iss in g a h a b e a s a p p lica tio n a s tim e -b a rre d b yA E D P A is s ubj ectt o de novo r evi ew . ” S e r r a n o v . Wi l l i a ms , 3 8 3 F . 3 d 1 1 8 1 , 1 1 8 4 (10 th C ir . 2004) ( quot i ng G ies b e rgv . C o c kre ll , 2 8 8 F . 3 d 2 6 8 , 2 7 0 (5th C ir . 2 0 0 2 )). II I. A n a ly sis T o obt ai n a C O A , a movantchal l engi ng a cr i m i nal convi ct i on under§ 2254 m us tm ake 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 . § 2 2 5 3 (c )(2 ); Mill e r-E l v. C o c kre ll , 5 3 7 U .S . 3 2 2 , 3 2 7 (2 0 0 3 ). T h is sta n d a rd is s a tisf

ied b yd e m o n stra tin g th a t “r e a so n a b le ju rists c o u ld d e b a te w hether. . . t he pet i t i on s houl d have be en r es ol ved i n a di ffe r entm annerort hat t he 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 ther . ” Sl ack v . McD ani el , 52 9 U . S . 47 3, 48 4 (200 0). W hen t he d i stri ctcou rtden i es a pet i t i on on pr ocedur al gr ounds , as i n thi s cas e, t he s t andar d i s fur therr efi ned, r equi r i ng pet i t i onert o s how t hatr eas onabl e j ur i s t s coul d fi nd i tdebat abl e w hether ( 1) t he pet i t i on s t at es a val i d cl ai m of the deni al of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght , and ( 2)T afoy a actuall ycl ai m s the d i stri ctcou rtov ercal culat ed h i s t ardi ness 3 undert he s t atut e butadmi t s t hathi s pet i t i on w as unt i m el ybyatl eas t“a few m ont hs . ” “[ I ] ti s appar entt hati f M r . T afoy a’ s A ppl i cat i on fora W r i tof H abea s C o rpu s is un ti m ely , itis un ti m elyo n lyb ya p eriod o f a fe w m o n ths, no t m o re th a n a y e a r a s a lle g e d b yR e s p o n d e n t.” P e t’ r B r. a t 1 9 . -4- th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s p ro c e d u ra l ru lin g w a s c o rr e c t. Id . B ec au se th e d istri ct co u rt ’s p ro c e d u ra l ru lin g th a t T a fo y a ’s c laim w a s tim e -b a rre d is n o t re a so n a b ly d e b a t a b l e , we mu s td e n yCO A. T afoy a conc edes t hathe fa i l ed t o fi l e hi s fede r al habea s pet i t i on w i thi n t he one- y ear w i ndow m andat ed by A E D PA . N everthel es s , he cl ai m s the l i m i t at i ons 3 per i od s houl d be equi t abl yt ol l ed bec aus e of ( 1) hi s l i m i t ed ac ces s t o l egal m at er i al s w hi l e i ncar cer at ed, and ( 2) hi s actual i nnocenc e of the cr i m e forw hi ch h e w a s c o n v ic te d . A E D P A ’s o n e -y e a r sta tu te o f lim itatio n s is su bjec t to e q u itab le to lli n g o n ly “i n r ar e and e xcept i onal ci r cumst ance s . ” G i bs on v. K l i nger , 232 F. 3d 799, 808 ( 10t h C i r . 2000) ( quot i ng D avis v. Johns on , 1 5 8 F .3 d 8 0 6 , 8 1 1 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 )) . E q u itab le to lli n g w o u ld b e a p p ro p ria te, fo r ex a m p le, w h e n a p riso n e r is a c tu a lly in n o c e n t, Mi l l er v. Marr , 1 4 1 F . 3 d 9 7 6 , 9 7 8 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ), w h e n a n a d v e rsa r y ’s c o n d u c t — o r o t h e r u n c o n tro llab l e ci r cumst ance s — pr event s a pr i s onerfr om t i m el yfi l i ng , o r w hen a pr i s oneract i vel ypur s ues j udi ci al r emedi es butfi l es a defect i ve pl eadi ng d u ri n g th e s ta tu to ry p e ri o d , Irw i n v. D ep’tof Veter an s A f f airs , 49 8 U. S. 8 9 , 9 6 (1 9 9 0 ). S im p le e x c u s a b le n e g le c t is n o t s u ffi c i e n t . Id. at96. M oreove r, a peti t i on er m ust dil i gen t l y pu rs ue h i s federal hab eas cl ai m s; a clai m of

i ns uf f i ci ent a cc ess t o r elevantlaw , s uch as A ED PA , is not enough t o s uppor tequi tabl e tol l i ng . Mi l l er , 141 F. 3d at978.T afoy a cl ai m s ourpr i ordeci s i on i n Mi l l er v. Marrl eftopen the 4 p o ss ib ili tyth a t lac k o f a c c e ss “ m a y , in c e rta in c irc u m sta n c e s, b e su fficie n t to ent i t l e a pe t i t i onert o equi t abl e t ol l i ng. ” Pet ’ rB r . at21. H ow ever , ourr ece nt deci s i on i n G i bs on m akes cl eart hatw her e a pr i s onerhas notdi l i gent l ypur s ued hi s cl ai m , l ack of

acc es s al one i s notenough t o s uppor tequi t abl e t ol l i ng. -5- Id . ( E m phas i s added. ) T afoy a has m ade no s how i ng w i th anys peci fi ci tythathe lac k e d a c c e ss to leg a l m a ter ials , n o r d id h e m a k e su c h a sh o w in g to th e m a g istra te j udge. T hus , w e fi nd no s uppor tforequi t abl e t ol l i ng on thi s al l egat i on. 4 T afoy a’ s ot hergr ound forequi t abl e t ol l i ng i s bas ed on a c l ai m of ac tual i nnocenc e. I tl i kew i s e fa i l s . H e cont ends he i s “ac tual l yi nnocentof the cr i m e of fi r s tdegr ee, depr aved- m i nd m ur der , ” quot i ng thi s pas s age f r om hi s fi l ed obj ect i ons t o t he magi s t r at e j udge’ s R eportand R ecomm endat i on: T he ev i den ce, as pres ented t o the ju ry , ind i cat ed thatM r. T afoy a m ust have be en t ot al l yu n aw are thatthe mot or cy cl i s the ca m e upon i n fr ont of hi s vehi cl e w as E ddi e D ur an. T her e coul d n o t poss i bl yhave be en a n yp re m e d itatio n o r in ten t. It w a s sim p ly a v e ry u n fo rtu n a te a c c id e n t, al t hough br oughtaboutby[A ppl i cant ’ s ] i m pai r ed condi t i on and po ssi blyneg l i gen tdis regar d. It w as no t m urder . . . and [M r. T afoy a i s] n o t a d e p ra v e d c ri m in a l. P e t’r B r. at 2 0

– 2 1 . T h e se c o n c lu so rya lleg a tio n s a re in su fficie n t to su p p o rt a cl ai m of ac tual i nnocenc e. T afoy a w as convi ct ed bya j uryof hi s peer s aft ert hey h a d a n o p p o r tu n i t yt o h e a ra n d we i g h t h e e v i d e n c e a g a i n s th i m. Th e S u p r e me C our tof N ew M exi co, aft err evi ew i ng the evi dence pr es ent ed att r i al , aff i r m ed the c o n v ict ion , h o lding there w as su ffici en t evid en ce fro m w h ich a rati o n al j u ry c o u ld fin d T a fo y a ’s a c ts w e re th e re su lt o f a d e p ra v e d m in d a n d th a t th e se a c ts c a u s e d th e v ic tim ’s d e a th .-6-

I n m ul t i pl e fi l i ngs , T afoy a has uns ucce s s ful l ypur s ued the i s s ue of evi dent i arys uffi ci encyw hi l e s eeki ng pos tconvi ct i on r el i ef i n s t at e and feder al cour t s . B ot h of hi s s ucce s s i ve s t at e habe as pet i t i ons w er e deni ed, the fi r s tone fol l ow i ng an evi dent i aryhear i ng on the i s s ue of j ur orm i s conduct . T he fe der al m agi s t r at e j udge and di s t r i ctcour thave l i kew i s e and i ndepende nt l yfound T afoy a’ s cl ai m s of ac tual i nnocenc e w i thoutm er i t . H avi ng been c ons i der ed and r ej e c t e d n o w b yt h e Ne w M e x i c o s t a t e tr i a l c o u r t , th e Ne w M e x i c o s t a t e s u p r e me cour t , t he fe der al m agi s t r at e j udge and the fe der al di s tr i ctcourt , T afoy a has had a car eful and thor ough eval uat i on of hi s cl ai m s . B as ed on ouri ndepende ntr evi ew of the r ecor d, w e l i kew i s e conc l ude thatT afoy a has notm ade a s how i ng under A E D PA t hathe w as actual l yi nnocentof the cr i m es forw hi ch he w as convi ct ed. W e ther efor e denyhi s r eques tforequi t abl e t ol l i ng of the A E D PA s t atut e of l i m i t at i on s. I V . C oncl usi on Fort he r eas ons s etfor t h above, w e D E N Y T afoy a’ s r eques tforC O A , and D IS M IS S th is a p p e a l.

E n ter e d fo r th e C o u rt,

T i m othyM . T ym kovi ch C i r cui tJ udge