Court Opinion

ID: 9368688
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-06 18:00:58.110701+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:10.086131
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 22-2127     Document: 010110808570         Date Filed: 02/06/2023     Page: 1
                                                                                      FILED
                                                                          United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                             Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                            February 6, 2023
                          _________________________________
                                                                             Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                                 Clerk of Court
  ARNOLDO NAVARETTE,

        Petitioner - Appellant,

  v.                                                            No. 22-2127
                                                    (D.C. No. 1:21-CV-00379-MV-JFR)
  VINCENT HORTON, Warden of the                                  (D. N.M.)
  Guadalupe County Correctional Facility;
  HECTOR BALDERAS, JR., Attorney
  General for the State of New Mexico,

        Respondents - Appellees.
                       _________________________________

             ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *
                    _________________________________

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

        This matter is before the court on Arnoldo Navarette’s counseled request for a

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

 court’s with-prejudice dismissal, on timeliness grounds, of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition.

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

 inter alia, final order denying a § 2254 petition unless the petitioner first obtains

 a COA); id. § 2244(d)(1) (setting out a one-year statute of limitations on § 2254

 petitions running from “the date on which the judgment became final by the

        *
          This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case,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: 22-2127   Document: 010110808570       Date Filed: 02/06/2023   Page: 2

 conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such

 review”). Because Navarette has not “made a substantial showing of the denial of

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

 and dismisses this appeal.

       A New Mexico state jury found Navarette guilty of (1) premeditated first-

 degree murder and (2) aggravated battery with a deadly weapon. State v.

 Navarette, No. S-1-SC-35528, 2018 WL 3470593, at *1 (N.M. July 19, 2018).

 After the state courts denied his request for post-conviction relief, Navarette filed

 the instant § 2254 petition. Navarette’s counseled petition can most accurately be

 described as skeletal. In response, New Mexico argued Navarette’s petition was

 untimely because it was filed more than nine months after the expiration of the

 limitations period set out in § 2244(d)(1). App. at 31-34. 1 The matter was

 referred to a magistrate judge for initial proceedings. See 28 U.S.C.

 § 636(b)(1)(B). In a well-reasoned report and recommendation, the magistrate

 judge recommended that the district court grant New Mexico’s motion to dismiss.

 App. at 54-58. The magistrate judge concluded Navarette’s petition was clearly

 untimely and Navarette was not entitled to equitable tolling because he did not,

 inter alia, establish he diligently pursued his claims. Id.

       1
        Although the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation indicates
 Navarette filed a response to New Mexico’s motion to dismiss, Navarette did not
 include that document in the appendix he filed in this court.

                                           2
Appellate Case: 22-2127   Document: 010110808570       Date Filed: 02/06/2023    Page: 3

       Navarette thereafter filed two documents. The first was a request for the

 district court to dismiss his petition without prejudice because he was attempting

 to exhaust an aspect of his ineffective assistance claim in state court. App. at 64-

 67. The second included objections to the report and recommendation. App. at

 68-74. In his objections, Navarette incorporated the arguments in his motion to

 dismiss without prejudice and asserted it would be inequitable to dismiss his

 petition as untimely. In a comprehensive order, the district court applied de novo

 review, adopted the report and recommendation, and dismissed Navarette’s

 petition with prejudice as untimely. App. at 97-104.

       The granting of a COA is a jurisdictional prerequisite to Navarette’s appeal

 from the denial of his § 2254 petition. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336

 (2003). To be entitled to a COA, Navarette must make “a substantial showing of

 the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make the

 requisite showing, 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.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 336 (quotations

 omitted). When a district court dismisses a § 2254 petition on procedural

 grounds, a petitioner is entitled to a COA only if he shows both that reasonable

 jurists would find it debatable whether he had stated a valid constitutional claim

 and debatable whether the district court’s procedural ruling was correct. Slack v.

 McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). In evaluating whether Navarette has

                                           3
Appellate Case: 22-2127   Document: 010110808570       Date Filed: 02/06/2023     Page: 4

 satisfied his burden, this court undertakes “a preliminary, though not definitive,

 consideration of the [legal] framework” applicable to each of his claims. Miller-

 El, 537 U.S. at 338. Although Navarette need not demonstrate his appeal will

 succeed to be entitled to a COA, he must “prove something more than the absence

 of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith.” Id. (quotations omitted). As a

 further overlay on this standard, we review for abuse of discretion the district

 court’s decision that Navarette is not entitled to have the limitations period in

 § 2244(d)(1) equitably tolled. See Burger v. Scott, 317 F.3d 1133, 1138, 1141

 (10th Cir. 2003).

       Having undertaken a review of Navarette’s appellate filings, the magistrate

 judge’s report and recommendation, the district court’s order, and the entire

 record before this court pursuant to the framework set out by the Supreme Court

 in Miller-El, we conclude Navarette is not entitled to a COA. 2 The district

 court’s resolution of Navarette’s § 2254 petition is not reasonably subject to

 debate and the issues he seeks to raise on appeal are not adequate to deserve

 further proceedings. In particular, the district court did not abuse its discretion in

       2
        Navarette’s opening brief and request for a COA is, if at all, barely
 adequate. It contains a mere one paragraph of legal analysis, with no citations to
 the record, that responds only in the most tangential way to the district court
 decision. But see Fed. R. App. P.28(a)(8). Nevertheless, this court has examined
 the entire record, with the relevant standard in mind, in analyzing whether
 Navarette is entitled to a COA. That searching review leaves no doubt that
 Navarette has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
 right and is not, therefore, entitled to a COA.

                                           4
Appellate Case: 22-2127   Document: 010110808570        Date Filed: 02/06/2023   Page: 5

 determining Navarette failed to demonstrate he was diligent in pursuing his

 remedies. Likewise, one cannot reasonably debate the correctness of the district

 court’s conclusion that it is entirely proper to dismiss with prejudice an untimely

 § 2254 petition even if the petitioner is seeking to further litigate his untimely

 federal claims in state court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2) (providing that it is proper

 to deny on the merits unexhausted claims). Accordingly, this court DENIES

 Navarette’s request for a COA and DISMISSES this appeal.

                                            Entered for the Court

                                            Michael R. Murphy
                                            Circuit Judge

                                           5