Watson v. Milyard , 314 F. App'x 149 ( 2009 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
February 25, 2009
TENTH CIRCUIT
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
JERRY WATSON,
Petitioner-Appellant, No. 08-1412
v. District of Colorado
KEVIN MILYARD; THE (D.C. No. 1:08-CV-01223-ZLW)
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF COLORADO,
Respondents-Appellee.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *
Before LUCERO, MURPHY and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.
Jerry Watson, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a certificate of
appealability (COA) that would allow him to appeal from the district court’s order
denying his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(1)(A). Because we conclude that Mr. Watson has failed to make “a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” we deny his request
for a COA, and dismiss the appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
*
This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of
the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.
Background
Mr. Watson seeks relief from sentences he incurred in 1996 in connection
with several counts of aggravated robbery in Colorado. He claims that he should
have been allowed to serve his Colorado sentences concurrently with, rather than
consecutively to, a prior Missouri sentence. His applications for relief in state
court were dismissed as untimely. In April 2008, Mr. Watson filed a 28 U.S.C. §
2254 motion in the Western District of Oklahoma, which was also dismissed as
untimely. Doc. 1 at 1. Mr. Watson appeals.
Discussion
The denial of a motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 may be appealed
only if the district court or this Court first issues a COA. 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(1)(A). A COA will issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). In order
to make such a showing, a petitioner must demonstrate that “reasonable jurists
could debate whether . . . the petition should have been resolved in a different
manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to
proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
Mr. Watson does not dispute that the period of time between when his 1996
sentences became final and he filed the instant case exceeds the one-year
limitations period, but he claims that his delay in seeking habeas relief was
-2-
justifiable. He argues that when he was transferred to Oklahoma due to
overcrowding in Colorado, “the Colorado inmates did not have access to federal
and Colorado state court rules and legal materials.” COA Application at 2. Mr.
Watson thus contends that the court overlooked “a time period that should have
been tolled” because of his lack of access to the proper legal materials. Id. at 3.
This argument was not presented below. The argument Mr. Watson made
in district court was that his time spent in Missouri prison should be tolled
because he did not have Colorado legal materials there. The district court found
that the time Mr. Watson was in Missouri may have been a time when he did not
have access to Colorado legal materials, and so held that “a total of 169 days was
not tolled under § 2244(d).” Doc. 13 at 7. Mr. Watson is now asking this court
also to toll for the time he spent in Oklahoma prison. COA Application at 3. In
his filings in district court, however, there was no mention of any tolling
argument with respect to his time in Oklahoma. Indeed, the district court
expressly found that “Mr. Watson does not claim he was denied access to
Colorado legal materials either before he was transferred to Missouri or after he
was returned to Colorado.” Id.
We decline to consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal.
Dockins v. Hines, 374 F.3d 935, 940 (10th Cir. 2004) (“Because this claim was
not presented to the district court, we decline to consider it on appeal and,
accordingly, DISMISS that claim.”).
-3-
Conclusion
Accordingly, we DENY Mr. Watson’s request for a COA and DISMISS
this appeal. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is also DENIED.
Entered for the Court,
Michael W. McConnell
Circuit Judge
-4-