Filed: Jul. 30, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit July 30, 2015 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court TENTH CIRCUIT JAMES L. CARLSON, Petitioner-Appellant, No. 15-3061 v. (D.C. No. 5:13-CV-03113-SAC) (D. Kan.) REX PRYOR, Respondent-Appellee. ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY * Before GORSUCH, O’BRIEN, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges. James Carlson was convicted in a Kansas court of aggravated kidnapping, criminal threat, and domestic battery. For these state
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit July 30, 2015 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court TENTH CIRCUIT JAMES L. CARLSON, Petitioner-Appellant, No. 15-3061 v. (D.C. No. 5:13-CV-03113-SAC) (D. Kan.) REX PRYOR, Respondent-Appellee. ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY * Before GORSUCH, O’BRIEN, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges. James Carlson was convicted in a Kansas court of aggravated kidnapping, criminal threat, and domestic battery. For these state ..
More
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
July 30, 2015
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
JAMES L. CARLSON,
Petitioner-Appellant, No. 15-3061
v. (D.C. No. 5:13-CV-03113-SAC)
(D. Kan.)
REX PRYOR,
Respondent-Appellee.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *
Before GORSUCH, O’BRIEN, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
James Carlson was convicted in a Kansas court of aggravated kidnapping,
criminal threat, and domestic battery. For these state crimes, the court sentenced
him to 272 months in prison. After the Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed his
convictions on direct appeal, State v. Carlson,
93 P.3d 1226 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004)
(unpublished table decision), and the Kansas Supreme Court denied his petition
for review as improvidently granted, State v. Carlson,
104 P.3d 402 (Kan. 2005)
(per curiam) (unpublished table decision), Mr. Carlson brought a series of state
*
This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of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.
post-conviction challenges. When these challenges, too, failed to win him relief,
he filed an application for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in federal
district court. In the end, however, the district court dismissed the motion after
finding his petition untimely and denied a certificate of appealability (COA). Mr.
Carlson now seeks from us a COA in order to challenge the district court’s denial
of his motion.
By statute, we may issue a COA only if the petitioner first makes a
“substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2). Where, as here, the district court dismissed a petition as untimely,
the petitioner must “show that ‘jurists of reason would find it debatable’ whether
his claim was time-barred.” Garcia v. Archuleta, 253 F. App’x 802, 803 (10th
Cir. 2007) (quoting Slack v. MacDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). This he
cannot do.
Mr. Carlson doesn’t dispute that his petition was untimely but suggests that
the district court should have equitably tolled the limitations period to permit his
claim. The statute of limitations for habeas petitions is, of course, subject to
equitable tolling in “rare and exceptional circumstances.” Gibson v. Klinger,
232
F.3d 799, 808 (10th Cir. 2000) (quoting Davis v. Johnson,
158 F.3d 806, 811 (5th
Cir. 1998)). But equitable tolling is appropriate only if the petitioner
demonstrates both “that he has been pursuing his rights diligently” and “that some
extraordinary circumstance,” prevented him from timely filing the petition. Pace
-2-
v. DiGuglielmo,
544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005). Otherwise, a petitioner may avoid the
time bar only by a showing of actual innocence. McQuiggin v. Perkins, 133 S.
Ct. 1924, 1931-32 (2013). In the materials before us, Mr. Carlson offers no
allegation as he must that he pursued his rights diligently during the period he
seeks to toll. Likewise, though he asserts his innocence, his papers supply no
persuasive support for this contention. Accordingly, a reasonable jurist could not
find the district court’s resolution debatable.
The application for a COA is denied and the appeal is dismissed.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Neil M. Gorsuch
Circuit Judge
-3-