Villa v. Raemisch ( 2018 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS October 5, 2018
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court
REYNALDO YSA VILLA,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v. No. 18-1115
(D.C. No. 1:17-CV-02404-LTB)
D.O.C. E.D. RICK RAEMISCH; (D. Colo.)
CYNTHIA COFFMAN, the Attorney
General for the State of Colorado,
Respondents - Appellees.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *
Before PHILLIPS, McKAY, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Reynaldo Villa seeks a certificate of appealability to appeal the
district court’s dismissal of his § 2254 habeas corpus petition as time-barred. He
also seeks to appeal the district court’s denial of his motions (1) for
reconsideration and (2) for the court to provide him with free copies of certain
documents he had attached to his earlier pleadings.
In 2006, Petitioner was convicted in two separate cases of sexual assault on
*
This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of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.
a child. His convictions were affirmed on direct appeal, but the Colorado
appellate court agreed there had been a sentencing error and thus remanded both
cases for resentencing. His resentencing proceedings occurred in 2010 and 2011.
Petitioner unsuccessfully sought state post-conviction relief, which tolled the
statute of limitations until 2014. With this tolling, Petitioner had until June 2015
to file a federal claim for habeas relief. However, he did not file the instant
action until October 2017. The federal district court therefore dismissed this
petition as untimely.
Petitioner filed several motions for reconsideration in which he sought
relief from the statute of limitations based on belatedly raised arguments of
equitable tolling and actual innocence. The district court held that these
arguments were raised too late and that, even if the court did consider them,
Petitioner’s arguments were insufficient to demonstrate that his habeas petition
should not be dismissed as untimely. The court also denied Petitioner’s motion
for a free copy of documents he had previously submitted to the court.
We have carefully reviewed Petitioner’s brief, the record on appeal, and the
relevant cases. We are persuaded that reasonable jurists would not debate the
correctness of the district court’s dismissal of this habeas petition on procedural
grounds. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483–84 (2000). The district court
fully explained why the petition should be dismissed as untimely, and we have
nothing to add to that court’s thorough explanation. As for Petitioner’s motion
-2-
for a free copy of his earlier exhibits, Petitioner does not explain why he believes
the district court should have granted this motion, and we are not persuaded this
argument presents a valid basis for relief. We therefore DENY Petitioner’s
request for a certificate of appealability and DISMISS the appeal. Petitioner’s
motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is GRANTED.
Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay
Circuit Judge
-3-