Opinion ID: 2722178
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Timeliness and Statutory Tolling

Text: 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) provides: (1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The limitation period shall run from the latest of— 3 (A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review; (B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing by such State action; (C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or (D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. (2) The time during which a properly filed application for State postconviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall not be counted toward any period of limitation under this subsection. The district court explained that Defendant’s state-court conviction became final on July 24, 2003, upon expiration of the 90-day period (after the OCCA denied relief on direct appeal) for seeking a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court. Defendant does not challenge this determination and we agree. The one-year limitation period under § 2244(d)(1) for challenging his conviction therefore commenced on July 25, 2003.1 1 We agree with the district court that none of the Supreme Court cases cited by Defendant would delay commencement of the limitation period under § 2244(d)(1)(C). And Defendant likewise showed no basis for application of § 2244(d)(1)(B). He does not raise an argument under either provision in this court. Also, some of Defendant’s claims appear to challenge the conduct of his state postconviction proceedings rather than his conviction (for example, Defendant’s claim that he was denied due process and equal protection in his May 2013 state-court postconviction proceeding). But such claims are not cognizable under § 2254 and must be dismissed regardless of timeliness. See Sellers v. Ward, 135 F.3d 1333, 1339 (10th Cir. 1998) (“[B]ecause the constitutional error he raises focuses only on the State’s post- 4 We also agree with the district court that Defendant was entitled to tolling under § 2244(d)(2) for the 11 days from the time he filed his motion for sentence modification to the time the state court denied the motion. See Wall v. Kholi, 131 S. Ct. 1278, 1287 (2011). He was also entitled, however, to tolling for the 30 days during which he could have appealed the denial of his motion. See Williams v. Gibson, 237 F.3d 1267, 1269 (10th Cir. 2001); Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1087 (1970) (“A final judgment entered under this act [the Oklahoma Post-Conviction Procedure Act, Okla. Stat. tit. 22, §§ 1080 et seq.] may be appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeals on petition in error filed either by the applicant or the state within thirty (30) days from the entry of the judgment.”). This means that Defendant could have filed his § 2254 application by September 4, 2004, which would be extended to September 7 because September 4 was the Saturday of the Labor Day Weekend. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C)). When Defendant filed his § 2254 application on November 18, 2013, he was more than nine years past the one-year deadline.