Court Opinion

ID: 9927977
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-30 17:01:24.552387+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:44:39.050629
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 22-3196     Document: 010110992026         Date Filed: 01/30/2024     Page: 1
                                                                                      FILED
                                                                          United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                             Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                            January 30, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                             Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                                 Clerk of Court
  RANDY ALLEN MARLER,

        Petitioner - Appellant,

  v.                                                            No. 22-3196
                                                    (D.C. No. 5:20-CV-03247-JWL-JPO)
  DONALD LANGFORD,                                               (D. Kan.)

        Respondent - Appellee.
                       _________________________________

             ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*
                    _________________________________

 Before TYMKOVICH, McHUGH, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
                  _________________________________

        Petitioner Randy Allen Marler, a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a habeas

 petition challenging his 2008 conviction. The district court dismissed his petition as

 time-barred and denied his application for a certificate of appealability (“COA”).

 Petitioner now requests a COA from this court. Because no reasonable jurist would

 debate the district court’s dismissal on procedural grounds, we deny Petitioner’s

 application for a COA and dismiss this matter.

        *
          This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case,
 res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value
 consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Appellate Case: 22-3196     Document: 010110992026          Date Filed: 01/30/2024      Page: 2

                                              I.

        In May 2008, a Kansas jury convicted Petitioner of rape, aggravated indecent

 liberties with a child, and endangering a child. Kansas v. Marler, 223 P.3d 804, 806

 (Kan. 2010). In January 2010, the Kansas Supreme Court (“KSC”) affirmed the

 convictions and sentences. One year later, Petitioner filed a state habeas motion raising

 ineffective assistance of counsel claims. The state trial court denied the habeas petition,

 the Kansas Court of Appeals (“KCOA”) affirmed the denial, and the KSC denied review.

 Petitioner next filed a second state habeas motion. In 2016, during this habeas

 proceeding, Petitioner then discovered a law enforcement interview with the victim’s

 mother. Petitioner asserted the State violated his Due Process rights when it failed to

 disclose this interview. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 90 (1963). The state district

 court held an evidentiary hearing but denied relief, the KCOA affirmed the denial, and

 the KSC again denied review.

        Petitioner then filed the present amended 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition in

 April 2022 raising four ineffective assistance claims and a Brady claim. The district

 court first determined that § 2244(d)(1)(A) time barred the ineffective assistance claims.

 The district court concluded Petitioner timely filed the Brady claim but that the state

 court did not unreasonably apply federal law when it disposed of the claim. Thus, the

 district court denied the § 2254 petition and denied a COA. Petitioner moved to alter or

 amend the judgment, asserting for the first time that the district court should have

 considered the limitation period under § 2244(d)(1)(D) instead of (d)(1)(A). The district

 court denied the post-judgment motion. Petitioner appeals.

                                              2
Appellate Case: 22-3196      Document: 010110992026          Date Filed: 01/30/2024      Page: 3

                                               II.

        We issue a COA only if a petitioner has “made a substantial showing of the denial

 of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Since the district court dismissed

 Petitioner’s habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the petitioner’s

 underlying constitutional claims, we will issue a COA only if he shows (1) “jurists of

 reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a

 constitutional right” and (2) “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district

 court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

 Petitioner must satisfy both parts of this threshold inquiry before we will hear the merits

 of the appeal. See Gibson v. Klinger, 232 F.3d 799, 802 (10th Cir. 2000).

                                              III.

        In the underlying habeas petition, Petitioner raised five claims. But in his

 combined opening brief and application for COA, Petitioner only addressed the

 timeliness of one of his ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Thus, we decline to

 address the district court’s dismissal of the other three ineffective assistance of counsel

 claims and the Brady claim. See United States v. Cervini, 379 F.3d 987, 994 n. 5 (10th

 Cir. 2004) (explaining that the court will not consider issues not raised in the briefs).

        In his sole issue on appeal, Petitioner argues that the district court should have

 considered his filing timely under § 2244(d)(1)(D) because he lacked key information

 from the prosecutor’s affidavit which would justify beginning the limitation period in

 2016. But Petitioner, despite multiple opportunities to demonstrate why the district court

 should not dismiss his petition as untimely, failed to make an argument based on §

                                               3
Appellate Case: 22-3196      Document: 010110992026          Date Filed: 01/30/2024      Page: 4

 2244(d)(1)(D) until his motion to alter or amend or reconsider. The district court

 determined this was too late; if Petitioner wanted the district court to consider his

 argument based on § 2244(d)(1)(D), he should have raised it before the judgment.

        We agree with the district court. A motion to alter or amend or reconsider is not

 the opportunity for the court to consider arguments that were available for presentation in

 the underlying proceedings. See Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th

 Cir. 1991). While Petitioner had ample opportunity to make this argument in his

 response to the district court’s orders, he failed to do so. Because no reasonable jurist

 would find the district court’s procedural ruling debatable, the request for a certificate of

 appealability is DENIED and this matter is DISMISSED.

                                                Entered for the Court

                                                Joel M. Carson III
                                                Circuit Judge

                                               4