Kilgore v. Attorney General

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
October 5, 2009
TENTH CIRCUIT
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
KYLE KEITH KILGORE,
Petitioner - Appellant, No. 08-1417
(D. Ct. Colo.)
v. (D. Ct. No. 1:06-CV-00333-ZLW)
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE
OF COLORADO; AL ESTEP, Warden,
Respondents - Appellees,
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS,
APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
AND DISMISSING APPEAL
Before HARTZ, EBEL, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.
Kyle Kilgore, a Colorado state prisoner appearing pro se,1 seeks a certificate of
appealability (COA). He wants to appeal from the denial of his petition for writ of
habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and moves to proceed in forma
pauperis (ifp) on appeal. Because Kilgore has not “made a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right,” see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), we deny a COA.
1
We liberally construe Kilgore’s pro se filings. See Ledbetter v. City of Topeka, Kan.,
318 F.3d 1183, 1187 (10th Cir. 2003).
I. BACKGROUND
In 1994, Kilgore was convicted of criminal solicitation to commit first degree
murder (contracting to kill his wife) and being a habitual criminal. He was sentenced to
life imprisonment. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction and sentence.
See People v. Kilgore, 95CA0166 (Colo. Ct. App. Feb. 20, 1997) (unpublished). The
Colorado Supreme Court denied review on October 6, 1997. Between June 19, 1998, and
March 12, 2003, Kilgore filed six post-conviction motions, four were denied by the
Colorado state courts and two do not appear to have been addressed.2
On August 9, 2005, Kilgore attempted to file a habeas corpus action in federal
court. The district court concluded his application was deficient and granted him thirty
days to file a proper application. Kilgore failed to do so. The court granted two more
thirty-day extensions of time. After the third extension, Kilgore requested a stay and
abeyance of his application. The court denied this request. On November 21, 2005, the
district court dismissed his application without prejudice for failure to cure the
deficiency. Kilgore requested reconsideration of the denial of his motion for stay and
abeyance; the court denied reconsideration on November 28, 2005. He did not appeal.
2
The government produced a report showing docket activity in the Colorado state
courts. This report shows Kilgore filed a post-conviction motion on June 19, 1998; the
motion was denied by the trial court, affirmed on appeal and the Colorado Supreme Court
denied certiorari review. On November 13, 2000, he filed a second post-conviction
motion; the trial court denied it and the Colorado Court of Appeals dismissed the
subsequent appeal. His third and fourth post-conviction motions were filed on January
12, 2001, and August 29, 2001, respectively; the trial court denied both motions and the
Colorado Supreme Court ultimately denied certiorari review. The docket report also
shows Kilgore filed a post-conviction motion on April 18, 2001, and another on March
12, 2003. The record does not indicate the disposition of either.
2
On February 6, 2006, Kilgore filed another federal habeas corpus application
which he amended on March 17 and May 4 of that year. The district court instructed
Kilgore to provide information about his state-court challenges so it could determine
whether his petition was filed within the one-year time period required under the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
After three thirty-day extensions, the district court, on its own motion, dismissed
Kilgore’s petition without prejudice for failure to comply with the court’s orders. Kilgore
appealed and we reversed, holding that in light of Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007)
“the district court cannot dismiss a habeas petition as untimely unless untimeliness is
clear from the face of the petition, or unless the state establishes untimeliness as an
affirmative defense.” Kilgore v. Attorney Gen. of Colo., 519 F.3d 1084, 1085 (10th Cir.
2008).
On remand, the State moved to dismiss Kilgore’s petition and provided documents
showing Kilgore’s petition was untimely. Upon review of the State’s documents, the
court determined 501 countable days passed before Kilgore filed his 2006 application for
habeas relief. Between January 5, 1998, (the date Kilgore’s conviction became final),
and June 19, 1998, (the date he filed his first motion for post-conviction relief under
Colorado Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(c)), 165 days had passed. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(d)(2), the court tolled the period of time during which Kilgore’s post-conviction
motions were pending in state court. However, 336 days elapsed between March 7, 2005
(the date the Colorado Supreme Court denied certiorari review of Kilgore’s last motion
for post-conviction relief) and February 6, 2006 (the date Kilgore filed his current
3
application for habeas review). It rejected Kilgore’s argument that his 2005 federal
habeas action tolled the limitations period and determined he was ineligible for equitable
tolling. The court concluded he failed to file within AEDPA’s one-year period of
limitations and dismissed his petition as untimely. It also found Kilgore’s “efforts . . . do
not demonstrate either the existence of an extraordinary situation when circumstances
beyond his control prevented him from filing a timely application . . . or diligent efforts
to pursue his claims.” (R. Vol. I, Doc. 45 at 9.) It therefore determined he was ineligible
for equitable tolling. Accordingly, the district court dismissed his action. It also denied
his request for a COA, one he renews with this Court.
Kilgore appealed, arguing the district court abused its discretion because it did not
properly toll the AEDPA period of limitations or apply equitable tolling.
II. DISCUSSION
A COA is a jurisdictional prerequisite to our review of a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). We will issue a COA
“only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
The district court’s procedural dismissal means Kilgore must demonstrate both
that “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of
the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable
whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529
U.S. 473, 484 (2000). “Where a plain procedural bar is present and the district court is
correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, a reasonable jurist could not conclude either
4
that the district court erred in dismissing the petition or that the petitioner should be
allowed to proceed further.” Id.A. Calculation of Time Under AEDPA
AEDPA states:
A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of
habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State
court. The limitation period shall run from . . . the date on which the
judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration
of the time for seeking such review . . . .
28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). It allows for the limitations period to be tolled, stating,
“[t]he time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other
collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall not be
counted toward any period of limitation under this subsection.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2).
Kilgore argues the limitations period should have been tolled under § 2244(d)(2) during
the time his 2005 federal habeas action was pending. He also asserts that because two of
his state post-conviction motions remain pending in the Colorado courts, the statute of
limitations remains tolled until these motions are resolved.3
1. 2005 Federal Habeas Action
Kilgore claims the court erred in failing to toll the time during which his 2005
federal habeas action was pending. Kilgore’s 2005 federal application is not a form of
collateral review sufficient to toll the limitations period under § 2244(d)(2). See Duncan
3
Kilgore also claims his first state post-conviction motion was filed on December
30, 1997. The record shows otherwise. Kilgore filed a motion to proceed ifp and for a
free transcript that date. He did not file his first state post-conviction motion until June
19, 1998.
5
v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 181 (2001) (Ҥ 2244(d)(2) does not toll the limitation period
during the pendency of a federal habeas petition”). Moreover, Kilgore’s failure to appeal
from the district court’s order dismissing his 2005 federal habeas action forecloses further
consideration of the issues he now raises regarding that dismissal.
2. Unresolved State Post-Conviction Motions
Kilgore also argues the limitations period has remained tolled from the time he
filed his first state post-conviction motion because two motions remain pending. He has
not produced evidence concerning these allegedly unresolved motions. It is unclear
whether they were properly filed or whether they in fact remain pending. Indeed, the
docket caption on one of the motions alleges a claim for ineffective assistance of post-
conviction counsel, a claim already rejected by the Colorado Court of Appeals. Kilgore
did not present this issue to the district court and in fact discussed only the four post-
conviction motions resolved by the Colorado courts. Generally, we will not address
issues raised for the first time on appeal. See United States v. Mora, 293 F.3d 1213, 1216
(10th Cir. 2002). In spite of our charitable reading of pro se petitions, we see no reason
to depart from our general rule here.4
B. Equitable tolling
After the district court correctly concluded Kilgore’s habeas application was not
4
Our review of the limited information in the record suggests the motions were
untimely under Colorado law. See Colo. Stat. Ann. § 16-5-402 (three-year statute of
limitations applies to collateral attacks of non-Class 1 felony convictions). Because
Kilgore’s motions were not timely, they were not “properly filed” so as to toll the period
of limitation under § 2244(d)(2). See Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 417 (2005).
6
timely filed, it addressed Kilgore’s remaining arguments within the context of equitable
tolling. We review a district court’s decision to deny equitable tolling for an abuse of
discretion. Fleming v. Evans, 481 F.3d 1249, 1254 (10th Cir. 2007). Equitable tolling
applies only in “rare and exceptional circumstances.” Laurson v. Leyba, 507 F.3d 1230,
1232 (10th Cir. 2007) (quotations omitted). “Generally, equitable tolling requires a
litigant to establish two elements: (1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and
(2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way.” Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d
925, 928 (10th Cir. 2008) (quotations omitted). A petitioner has the burden of
establishing that equitable tolling should apply. Pace, 544 U.S. at 418.
Kilgore contends his diligent efforts to gather the documents required by the court
were thwarted by the State of Colorado’s failure to produce documents. He alleges he
“was forced to request extensions of time in order to continue his attempts to obtain the
[documents]” and he “was doing all he could to obtain the information.” (Appellant’s Br.
at 3, 3c.) Record evidence of these efforts, however, is lacking. Kilgore offers only two
letters dated September 25, 2006 - ten months after his 2005 petition was dismissed –
where he requested copies of the necessary documents from the Colorado Court of
Appeals and the Colorado State Archives - Criminal Records Division. At that time, he
was already on his third extension of time for his 2006 habeas action. The district court
properly declined to apply equitable tolling.
Kilgore has not shown that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether his
petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and the district court
was correct in its procedural ruling. He is not entitled to a COA.
7
C. Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
In order to proceed ifp on appeal, Kilgore must “show a financial inability to pay
the required fees and the existence of a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and
facts in support of the issues raised on appeal.” DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d 502,
505 (10th Cir. 1991) (emphasis added). Because Kilgore has failed to make a
nonfrivolous argument, we deny his request to proceed ifp. He is directed to remit the
full amount of the filing fee within twenty days. See Kinnell v. Graves, 265 F.3d 1125,
1129 (10th Cir. 2001) (dismissal of an appeal does not relieve appellant of the obligation
to pay the appellate filing fee in full).
We DENY Kilgore’s request for a COA and his motion to proceed ifp. His appeal
is DISMISSED.
Entered by the Court:
Terrence L. O’Brien
United States Circuit Judge
8