Court Opinion

ID: 9951067
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-15 16:00:47.991894+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:37:05.095457
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-5128      Document: 010111016439         Date Filed: 03/15/2024      Page: 1
                                                                                       FILED
                                                                           United States Court of Appeals
                        UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                             Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                               March 15, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                               Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                                   Clerk of Court
  LUBUTO MUSONDA,

        Petitioner - Appellant,

  v.                                                             No. 23-5128
                                                    (D.C. No. 4:23-CV-00030-CVE-CDL)
  MIKE ROGERS,                                                   (N.D. Okla.)

        Respondent - Appellee.
                       _________________________________

             ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*
                    _________________________________

 Before HARTZ, BALDOCK, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
                   _________________________________

        Petitioner Lubuto Musonda filed an application in the United States District Court

 for the Northern District of Oklahoma for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, seeking

 to set aside his state-court convictions for child abuse, robbery, assault and battery on a

 police officer, and cruelty to animals. The district court dismissed the application as

 untimely and denied a certificate of appealability (COA). Mr. Musonda now seeks a

 COA from this court so that he can appeal the dismissal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A).

 We deny a COA and dismiss the appeal.

        *
          This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case,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: 23-5128      Document: 010111016439          Date Filed: 03/15/2024          Page: 2

        A COA will issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the

 denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This standard requires “a

 demonstration that . . . includes showing that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or,

 for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or

 that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.”

 Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). In other

 words, the applicant must show that the district court’s resolution of the constitutional

 claim was either “debatable or wrong.” Id. If the application was denied on procedural

 grounds, the applicant faces a double hurdle. Not only must the applicant make a

 substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, but he must also show “that

 jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its

 procedural ruling.” Id. “Where a plain procedural bar is present and the district court is

 correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, a reasonable jurist could not conclude either

 that the district court erred in dismissing the petition or that the petitioner should be

 allowed to proceed further.” Id.

        The district court concluded that Mr. Musonda did not timely file his § 2254

 application. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Mr. Musonda’s only challenge to the district-court

 ruling is to contend that he can escape the statutory time bar because he is actually

 innocent of the crime of which he was convicted. See McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S.

 383, 392 (2013) (“[A] credible showing of actual innocence may allow a prisoner to

 pursue his constitutional claims . . . on the merits notwithstanding the existence of a

 procedural bar to relief.”). But to qualify for this equitable actual-innocence exception, an

                                             Page 2
Appellate Case: 23-5128     Document: 010111016439          Date Filed: 03/15/2024      Page: 3

 applicant must present “new reliable evidence . . . that was not presented at trial.” Schlup

 v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 324 (1995). The district court properly concluded that the only

 evidence presented in support of Mr. Musonda’s claim of innocence was evidence

 presented at his state-court trial. The failure to provide new evidence in support of his

 assertion of actual innocence dooms his claim. Reasonable jurists would not find the

 district court’s dismissal of Mr. Musonda’s petition debatable.

        We DENY a COA and DISMISS the appeal.

                                               Entered for the Court

                                               Harris L Hartz
                                               Circuit Judge

                                            Page 3