Miller, Jr. v. Trammell

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
October 25, 2011
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
HARRY WAYNE MILLER, JR.,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
No. 11-7061
(D.C. No. 6:10-CV-00487-FHS-KEW)
ANITA TRAMMELL, Warden,
(E.D. Okla.)
Respondent-Appellee.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *
Before LUCERO, ANDERSON, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.
In 2007 an Oklahoma state court sentenced Harry Miller, Jr., to prison for
making a lewd or indecent proposal to a child. In 2010, he filed an application
for state post-conviction relief and, when that failed, a federal habeas petition
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In the latter petition Mr. Miller acknowledged his filing
was untimely, given the one-year limitations period set forth in 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(d)(1), but he argued that he was entitled to equitable tolling because he
*
This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of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.
had limited access to a prison law library and required more time to learn how to
type and prepare his petition. The district court held that Mr. Miller’s
circumstances did not warrant equitable tolling, dismissed the petition as
untimely, and declined to issue a certificate of appealability (“COA”). Now in
this court, Mr. Miller renews his request for a COA.
When the district court dismisses a § 2254 petition on procedural grounds
we may issue a COA only if “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). That standard is not met here. Equitable tolling is available
only “in rare and exceptional circumstances” such as “when an adversary’s
conduct . . . prevents a prisoner from timely filing.” Gibson v. Klinger, 232 F.3d
799, 808 (10th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Simple excusable
neglect” — including neglect based on “a claim of insufficient access to relevant
law” — “is not sufficient.” Id. As the district court recognized, however, that is
all Mr. Miller alleged in the district court. Before us, Mr. Miller also argues for
the first time that he has psychiatric conditions that made timely filing impossible
— but there are no facts in the record supporting this claim and we cannot say
that the district court erred in failing to consider this ground for equitable tolling.
-2-
Mr. Miller’s application for a COA is denied and this appeal is dismissed.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Neil M. Gorsuch
Circuit Judge
-3-