Robinson v. Estrada , 637 F. App'x 531 ( 2016 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS March 10, 2016
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court
JAMES M. ROBINSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
No. 15-1370
(D.C. No. 1:12-CV-02659-LTB)
VALERIE ESTRADA,
(D. Colo.)
Respondent - Appellee.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *
Before GORSUCH, BALDOCK, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
After a Colorado jury convicted him of public indecency, Mr. Robinson
filed a habeas petition challenging his conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. But
when Mr. Robinson repeatedly disregarded court deadlines without a colorable
excuse, the court dismissed the petition for lack of prosecution under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Mr. Robinson asks us to grant him a certificate of
appealability and hold that the district court abused its discretion in reaching this
decision, but we don’t see how we might.
*
This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of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.
In an ideal world all cases would be resolved on their merits rather than on
the basis of process fouls, but we do not live in an ideal world. Sometimes people
miss court deadlines by accident or for a good reason, and often their mistakes are
excused. But no litigant can without good reason repeatedly disregard court
orders and fail to expect that dismissal will follow. See, e.g., Lee v. Max Int’l,
LLC, 638 F.3d 1318, 1323-24 (10th Cir. 2011).
That’s what happened here. After Mr. Robinson filed his federal habeas
petition, the district court realized he hadn’t exhausted his state remedies. Rather
than dismiss the case outright, though, the court offered to stay the federal
proceedings until Mr. Robinson could exhaust the state remedies still available to
him. The court clearly and pointedly advised Mr. Robinson that he would have
thirty days to reopen his habeas petition once the state proceedings finished. But
rather than following those directions, Mr. Robinson waited nearly a year after
exhausting his state remedies before moving to reopen his federal habeas action
and he offered no colorable excuse or justification for his delay. Because of this,
the district court issued an order asking Mr. Robinson to show cause within thirty
days why his action should not be dismissed. But Mr. Robinson disregarded this
deadline too, and did so again without offering any colorable excuse or
justification. Only then did the district court finally dismiss his case. Under
these circumstances it cannot reasonably be disputed that the district court acted
within the discretion afforded it by law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Lee, 638
-2-
F.3d at 1321-24. Mr. Robinson’s request for a certificate of appealability is
denied and this appeal is dismissed.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Neil M. Gorsuch
Circuit Judge
-3-