Court Opinion

ID: 9915077
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-04 17:00:39.493535+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:17:03.584358
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-5105     Document: 010110978299         Date Filed: 01/04/2024     Page: 1
                                                                                     FILED
                                                                         United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                            Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                            January 4, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                             Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                                 Clerk of Court
  JOSE MANUEL DIAZ,

        Petitioner - Appellant,

  v.                                                            No. 23-5105
                                                    (D.C. No. 4:22-CV-00457-TCK-SH)
  STEVEN HARPE,                                                 (N.D. Okla.)

        Respondent - Appellee.
                       _________________________________

             ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*
                    _________________________________

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

        This matter is before the court on Jose Manuel Diaz’s pro se request for a

 certificate of appealability (“COA”). Diaz seeks a COA so he can appeal the

 district court’s dismissal, on timeliness grounds, of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas

 petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (providing no appeal may be taken from a

 final order denying habeas corpus relief unless the petitioner first obtains a

 COA); id. § 2244(d) (setting out a one-year statute of limitations as to habeas

 corpus petitions). Because Diaz has not “made a substantial showing of the denial

        *
         This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case,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: 23-5105    Document: 010110978299       Date Filed: 01/04/2024       Page: 2

 of a constitutional right,” id. § 2253(c)(2), this court denies his request for a

 COA and dismisses this appeal.

       In his § 2254 habeas petition, Diaz seeks to challenge his 2018 Oklahoma

 state conviction for assault and battery with a deadly weapon.1 Relying on the

 Supreme Court’s decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), Diaz

 challenges the validity of his convictions. The district court dismissed Diaz’s

 petition as untimely, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), concluding Diaz was not entitled to

 either statutory or equitable tolling.

       Diaz seeks a COA so he can appeal the district court’s dismissal of his

 § 2254 petition. To be entitled to a COA, he must make “a substantial showing of

 the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). That is, he must

 demonstrate “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.”

       1
        On January 11, 2018, an Oklahoma state jury convicted Diaz of violating
 Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 652(C) (2011). Diaz was sentenced to thirty years’
 imprisonment. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (“OCCA”) affirmed the
 conviction and sentence in an unpublished opinion on August 29, 2019. Diaz
 sought post-conviction relief in state court via a June 15, 2021, application for
 post-conviction relief. He argued Oklahoma lacked “jurisdiction” over his crime.
 The state trial court denied relief on July 21, 2021. Diaz filed an untimely appeal
 from this order; the OCCA issued an order declining jurisdiction on October 18,
 2021. Nearly three months later, Diaz sought a recommendation for an out-of-
 time appeal. The state trial court concluded a late appeal was unwarranted. The
 OCCA issued an order denying Diaz’s request on August 1, 2022.

                                           2
Appellate Case: 23-5105   Document: 010110978299       Date Filed: 01/04/2024     Page: 3

 Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (quotations omitted). Diaz has

 not made the requisite showing.

       As this court’s recent decisions make clear, McGirt’s focus on a question

 of federal-versus-state jurisdiction does not alter the conclusion that the one-year

 limitations period set out in § 2244(d)(1)(A), rather than the ones set out in

 § 2244(D)(1)(C) and/or (D), applies to McGirt-based challenges to the validity of

 state convictions. Warnick v. Harpe, No. 22-5042, 2022 WL 16646708, at *2-3

 (10th Cir. Nov. 3, 2022); Owens v. Whitten, No. 22-5106, 2022 WL 17972141, at

 *1 (10th Cir. Dec. 28, 2022) 2 ; Pacheco v. El Habti, 62 F.4th 1233, 1240-41 (10th

 Cir. 2023). Furthermore, Diaz conceded in the district court that he is not entitled

 to statutory tolling pursuant to § 2244(d)(2). Thus, pursuant to § 2244(d)(1)(A),

 the limitations period ran unabated from November 28, 2019, 3 until it expired one

 year later, on November 30, 2020. Thus, the district court’s conclusion that

 Diaz’s instant § 2254 petition, filed on October 14, 2022, is untimely is not

 reasonably debatable.

       In addition, no reasonable jurist could conclude the district court acted

 outside the bounds of its substantial discretion in ruling that Diaz’s lack of

       2
        This court recognizes that Warnick and Owens are unpublished and, thus,
 not binding precedent. Nevertheless, the analyses set out therein are completely
 persuasive and this panel adopts them in their entirety. See Tenth Cir. R. 32.1.
       3
        On this date, the ninety-day period for seeking a writ of certiorari from the
 United States Supreme Court expired. See Locke v. Saffle, 237 F.3d 1269, 1272
 (10th Cir. 2001).

                                           3
Appellate Case: 23-5105   Document: 010110978299       Date Filed: 01/04/2024      Page: 4

 diligence, together with his inability to demonstrate the existence of exceptional

 circumstances, foreclosed his claimed entitlement to equitable tolling. Holland v.

 Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 645 (2010) (noting equitable tolling is available in rare

 circumstances, but concluding a petitioner must demonstrate reasonable diligence

 to be entitled to its benefits); Burger v. Scott, 317 F.3d 1133, 1138 (10th Cir

 2003) (holding that this court reviews a district court decision on equitable tolling

 for abuse of discretion). Nor could a reasonable judge debate the district court’s

 conclusion that Diaz’s merits-based jurisdictional arguments do not implicate

 “actual innocence.” Pacheco, 62 F.4th at 1241-46 (explaining at length why

 arguments about a lack of state court jurisdiction do not implicate the actual-

 innocence doctrine).

       Diaz’s request for a COA is DENIED and this appeal is DISMISSED.

                                           Entered for the Court

                                           Michael R. Murphy
                                           Circuit Judge

                                          4