Court Opinion

ID: 9905992
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-30 18:01:16.305613+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:03.203681
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-7056     Document: 010110961029          Date Filed: 11/30/2023         Page: 1
                                                                   FILED
                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                        UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS         Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                         November 30, 2023
                          _________________________________
                                                                           Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                               Clerk of Court
  CARINZO JARON EVITT,

        Petitioner - Appellant,

  v.                                                             No. 23-7056
                                                     (D.C. No. 6:22-CV-00358-JFH-GLJ)
  STEVEN HARPE,                                                  (E.D. Okla.)

        Respondent - Appellee.
                       _________________________________

             ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *
                    _________________________________

 Before MATHESON, BRISCOE, and EID, Circuit Judges.
                   _________________________________

        Carinzo Jaron Evitt, an Oklahoma state prisoner appearing pro se, 1 seeks a

 certificate of appealability (“COA”) to challenge the district court’s dismissal of his

 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application for a writ of habeas corpus as untimely. He also seeks

 leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we

 grant his ifp request, deny 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          This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case,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.
        1
          Because Mr. Evitt proceeds pro se, we construe his filings liberally but do not
 serve as his advocate. United States v. Pinson, 584 F.3d 972, 975 (10th Cir. 2009).
Appellate Case: 23-7056     Document: 010110961029          Date Filed: 11/30/2023      Page: 2

                                    I. BACKGROUND

        On November 27, 2017, Mr. Evitt pled guilty in Muskogee County, Oklahoma

 state court to possession of a firearm after a former felony conviction. He was sentenced

 to 10 years in prison.

        On April 8, 2021, Mr. Evitt filed an application for postconviction relief in state

 court, which was denied on February 15, 2022. He appealed to the Oklahoma Court of

 Criminal Appeals (“OCCA”), which dismissed the application as untimely.

        On August 1, 2022, Mr. Evitt filed a second application for postconviction relief in

 state court, which was denied on August 26, 2022. He appealed to the OCCA, which

 affirmed the denial on November 9, 2022.

        On December 12, 2022, Mr. Evitt filed the underlying § 2254 application, alleging

 that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that, under McGirt v. Oklahoma,

 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), the State of Oklahoma lacked jurisdiction to prosecute him. The

 State moved to dismiss the § 2254 application as time-barred or for failure to exhaust

 state remedies.

        In a July 24, 2023 Opinion and Order, the district court dismissed the § 2254

 petition as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)’s one-year limitations period and

 denied a COA.

        Mr. Evitt filed a timely notice of appeal.

                                               2
Appellate Case: 23-7056      Document: 010110961029         Date Filed: 11/30/2023        Page: 3

                                     II.    DISCUSSION

                                  A.       Legal Background

        Certificate of Appealability

        To appeal from a denial of a habeas application, a prisoner must first obtain a

 COA. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003).

 When, as here, the district court denied a habeas application on procedural grounds, a

 COA may issue only if the applicant demonstrates (1) “that jurists of reason would find it

 debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right”

 and (2) “that 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). “Each

 component of [this] showing is part of a threshold inquiry . . . .” Id. at 485. Thus, if a

 petitioner cannot make a showing on the procedural issue, we need not address the

 constitutional component. See id.

    Statute of Limitations
        We review de novo the district court's dismissal based on timeliness. See United

 States v. Denny, 694 F.3d 1185, 1189 (10th Cir. 2012); Serrano v. Williams, 383 F.3d

 1181, 1184 (10th Cir. 2004). “Arguments not clearly made in a party's opening brief are

 deemed waived.” Toevs v. Reid, 685 F.3d 903, 911 (10th Cir. 2012). This rule applies

 “even to prisoners who proceed pro se and therefore are entitled to liberal construction of

 their filings.” Id.

            Section 2244(d) provides:

                                               3
Appellate Case: 23-7056    Document: 010110961029          Date Filed: 11/30/2023      Page: 4

              (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—

                     (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 post-conviction 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.

                                        B. Analysis

       In its dismissal order, the district court determined that Mr. Evitt’s § 2254

 application was untimely under:

              Section 2244(d)(1)(A), because the one-year limitations
              period began to run on December 8, 2017, the day after his
              state conviction became final, and expired on December 10,

                                              4
Appellate Case: 23-7056      Document: 010110961029          Date Filed: 11/30/2023         Page: 5

               2018. The application was filed on December 12, 2022.
               ROA at 115-16. 2

               Section 2244(d)(1)(B), because the two state applications for
               postconviction relief were filed after the limitations period
               had expired and therefore statutory tolling did not apply. Id.
               at 116.

               Section 2244(d)(1)(D), because the factual predicate for his
               jurisdictional claim could have been discovered through due
               diligence more than one year before he filed his § 2254
               application. Id. at 114-15. 3

        The court noted that Mr. “Evitt does not argue that he is entitled to equitable

 tolling, and nothing in his submissions indicates that he diligently pursued his claims or

 that extraordinary circumstances precluded the timely submission of his action.”

 Id at 116-17. The court also rejected Mr. Evitt’s actual innocence claim. Id. at 117.

        In his brief to this court, Mr. Evitt does not (1) challenge the district court’s

 determinations under § 2244(d)(1)(A) or (B); (2) argue for equitable tolling; 4 or

 (3) contest the district court’s rejection of his “actual innocence” argument.

        2
          In what appears to be a typographical error, the district court stated that Mr. Evitt
 filed his 2254 application on December 1, 2022. It was filed on December 12,
 2022. ROA at 116. Correction of this error does not affect the district court’s or this
 court’s analysis.
        3
           Mr. Evitt did not argue his application was timely under § 2244(d)(1)(C). The
 district court did not address this provision. He could not rely on § 2244(d)(1)(C)
 because “McGirt announced no new constitutional right. It self-professedly resolved a
 question of statutory interpretation . . . to determine that the federal government . . . has
 never” disestablished the Creek Reservation. Pacheco v. Habti, 62 F.4th 1233, 1246
 (10th Cir. 2023) (alterations and quotations omitted).
        4
          Equitable tolling may be granted in “rare and exceptional circumstances,”
 Gibson v. Klinger, 232 F.3d 799, 808 (10th Cir. 2000) (quotations omitted), when
 petitioners show diligent pursuit of their rights and that an extraordinary circumstance

                                                5
Appellate Case: 23-7056        Document: 010110961029       Date Filed: 11/30/2023     Page: 6

        Mr. Evitt rests his request for a COA on his contention that his counsel was

 ineffective for failing to challenge the state court’s jurisdiction under Murphy v. Royal,

 875 F.3d 896 (10th Cir. 2017), aff’d sub nom. Sharp v. Murphy, 140 S. Ct. 2412 (2020).

 Like McGirt, we held in Murphy that Congress had not disestablished the Muscogee

 (Creek) Reservation, and we decided Murphy before Mr. Evitt entered his plea in state

 court. Id. at 966. In his brief, he invokes § 2244(d)(1)(D), which, as previously noted,

 provides that he may file a § 2254 application one year from “the date on which the

 factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the

 exercise of due diligence.”

        The district court rejected this argument, finding that Mr. “Evitt ha[d] not

 demonstrated that the factual predicate of his claims could not have been discovered prior

 to the date his conviction became final” and that “[t]he fact that the Creek Reservation

 has not been disestablished . . . was discoverable through the exercise of due diligence.”

 ROA at 114. 5

 prevented timely filing, Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 649 (2010); Clark v.
 Oklahoma, 468 F.3d 711, 714 (10th Cir. 2006). But in the district court and again here,
 Mr. Evitt has not addressed the equitable tolling standard, and, as noted below, he has not
 shown that he learned the facts necessary for an ineffectiveness claim within a year of
 filing his § 2254 application. See Doby v. Dowling, 632 F. App’x 485, 488 (10th Cir.
 2015) (unpublished) (cited for persuasive value under Fed. R. App. P. 32.1; 10th Cir.
 R. 32.1(A)).
        5
          Although Mr. Evitt may have been able to discover the factual predicate of his
 § 2254 claim before his conviction became final, § 2244(d)(1)(D) starts the one-year
 limitations period from “the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims
 presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence,” which
 could be later than the date of his final conviction. Nonetheless, as we explain below, he
 has not made this showing.

                                              6
Appellate Case: 23-7056     Document: 010110961029          Date Filed: 11/30/2023    Page: 7

        Mr. Evitt argues here that “[h]e did not become aware of the [c]ourt[s’] decision[s]

 in Murphy or McGirt until he was in prison and other inmates told him about the cases

 decided by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.” Aplt. Br.

 at 3-3A. But because (1) he pled guilty and was sentenced on November 27, 2017;

 (2) Murphy was decided previously on November 9, 2017; and (3) McGirt was decided

 July 9, 2020, this argument fails to show that he learned about Murphy or McGirt within

 one year of filing his § 2254 application on December 12, 2022.

        Mr. Evitt’s argument also fails for the reason recently stated in Ford v. Dowling,

 No. 22-6138, 2023 WL 2641476 (10th Cir. Mar. 27, 2023), an unpublished decision we

 find persuasive, see Fed. R. App. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A), in which Mr. Ford raised

 a similar issue:

               [Section] 2244(d)(1)(D) is inapplicable because nothing in
               McGirt can be said to reveal a new factual predicate for
               Ford’s claim. Notwithstanding Oklahoma’s “historical
               prosecutorial practice of asserting jurisdiction over Indians in
               state court, even for serious crimes on the contested lands,”
               McGirt, 140 S. Ct. at 2470, the factual basis for Ford’s
               claim—that Congress did not disestablish the Creek
               Reservation—could have been discovered with due diligence
               by consulting “Acts of Congress,” id. at 2462. Indeed, we
               recognized the factual predicate for the claim in 2017. See
               Murphy[, 875 F.3d at 966]. And with due diligence, Ford
               might have raised the issue sooner.

 Id. at *3.

        For the foregoing reasons, reasonable jurists would not debate the district court’s

 dismissal of Mr. Evitt’s § 2254 application as untimely.

                                              7
Appellate Case: 23-7056    Document: 010110961029       Date Filed: 11/30/2023    Page: 8

                                  III. CONCLUSION

        We grant Mr. Evitt’s request to proceed ifp. We deny his request for a COA and

 dismiss this matter.

                                            Entered for the Court

                                            Scott M. Matheson, Jr.
                                            Circuit Judge

                                            8