Seward v. Province

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
February 20, 2008
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
JERRY LLOYD SEWARD,
Petitioner - Appellant, Nos. 07-6145, 07-6171
v. (W.D. Oklahoma)
GREG PROVINCE, Warden; THE (CIV-07-246-F)
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
OKLAHOMA,
Respondents - Appellees.
ORDER
Before HENRY, Chief Judge, TYMKOVICH, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
Proceeding pro se, state prisoner Jerry Seward has filed an application for a
certificate of appealability (COA), seeking to appeal the district court’s dismissal
of his petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Because Mr.
Seward has failed to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), we deny his application for a COA and dismiss
this matter.
I. BACKGROUND
On June 25, 2003, an Oklahoma court sentenced Mr. Seward to forty years’
imprisonment, the final twenty years of which were suspended, after Mr. Seward
pleaded guilty to Rape in the First Degree of a Minor Under the Age of Fourteen.
On April 25, 2005, Mr. Seward filed an application for post-conviction relief in
state court, claiming that his counsel had been ineffective and that newly
discovered evidence supported a claim of actual innocence. The trial court denied
Mr. Seward’s application, and the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA)
affirmed. Mr. Seward filed a second application for state post-conviction relief.
The trial court again denied relief, and the OCCA affirmed in an unpublished
order. Rec. doc. V, at 2 (Order Affirming Denial of Subsequent Application for
Post-Conviction Relief, No. PC-2006-1131) (citing Fowler v. State, 896 P.2d 566,
569 (Okla. Crim App. 1995) (“The Post-Conviction Procedure Act is not intended
to provide a second appeal.”)).
On February 27, 2007, Mr. Seward filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus
in federal district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Mr. Seward’s petition
challenged the adequacy of the state’s post-conviction proceedings and alleged
that his state court trial counsel was ineffective. The district court dismissed the
petition, finding that Mr. Seward’s challenges to the state’s post-conviction
processes failed to state a federal constitutional claim and that his ineffective
assistance of counsel claims were barred as untimely.
-2-
Mr. Seward filed a Notice of Intent to Appeal the district court’s decision.
The district court construed Mr. Seward's Notice of Intent to Appeal as an
application for a COA and denied the application. Mr. Seward has filed an appeal
from the district court’s denial of his petition on the merits (No. 07-6145), and
also requests a COA. Additionally, he has filed a separate brief in an attempt to
appeal from the district court’s denial of his application for a COA (No. 07-6171).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, Mr. Seward must obtain a COA before challenging the
district court’s dismissal of his petition. Thus, we treat Mr. Seward’s filings as a
single application for a COA.
II. DISCUSSION
Mr. Seward’s briefs before this court do not raise claims relating to the
adequacy of Oklahoma’s post-conviction processes. Before this panel, Mr.
Seward seeks a COA only to raise his ineffective assistance of counsel claims.
Thus, we now consider solely whether Mr. Seward should be granted a COA for
his ineffective assistance of counsel claims.
A COA is a jurisdictional prerequisite to this Court’s review of Mr.
Seward’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.
322, 336 (2003). We will issue a COA only if Mr. Seward makes “a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). In order
to make this showing, Mr. Seward must demonstrate that the issues raised are
-3-
debatable among jurists, that a court could resolve the issues differently, or that
the questions deserve further proceedings. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000). Because the district court dismissed Mr. Seward’s petition on procedural
grounds, Mr. Seward must show 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.” Id.In this case, the district court properly found that Mr. Seward’s claims were
time barred. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act establishes a
one-year limitations period for the filing of habeas petitions by prisoners in state
custody. The limitations period begins on the latest of the following: (1) the date
on which a state court judgment becomes final; (2) the date of the removal of an
unconstitutional state-created impediment; (3) the date on which a right is newly
recognized by the Supreme Court; or (4) the date on which the factual predicate
of claims could have been discovered through due diligence. See 28 U.S.C. §
2244(d)(1)(A)-(D).
On June 25, 2003, the Oklahoma district court sentenced Mr. Seward and
entered a judgment in his case. Mr. Seward did not move to withdraw his guilty
plea, file a direct appeal, or seek a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the
United States. As a result, the judgment in Mr. Seward’s case became final ten
days later, on July 5, 2003. See O KLA . S TAT . tit. 22, § 18; Rule 4.2, Rules of the
-4-
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. Thus, Mr. Seward’s limitations period
expired on July 5, 2004, and his February 27, 2007, filing of a habeas petition
was untimely under § 2244(d)(1)(A).
Mr. Seward’s petition was also untimely under § 2244(d)(1)(D), which
allows a prisoner to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus within one year of
the discovery of evidence establishing innocence. See § 2244(d)(1)(D). Under
this provision, Mr. Seward’s claim that newly discovered evidence established his
innocence had to be filed within one year of “the date on which the factual
predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the
exercise of due diligence.” Easterwood v. Champion, 213 F.3d 1321, 1323 (10th
Cir. 2000) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(D)). Here, Mr. Seward’s evidence
was an Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation (OSBI) report filed on April 9,
2003 that noted that no DNA comparisons were performed in Mr. Seward’s case.
Mr. Seward received a copy of the report in September 2004. We will assume
that Mr. Seward discovered the evidence on September 30, 2004, meaning that,
under § 2244(d)(1)(D), his limitations period would expire on September 30,
2005.
However, “the time during which a properly filed application for State
post-conviction review or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent
judgment or claim is pending shall not be counted toward any period of
limitation,” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). In this case, Mr. Seward filed a petition for
-5-
post-conviction relief in Oklahoma district court on April 26, 2005, which the
district court denied and which the OCCA later denied in an order dated July 22,
2005. The one-year limitations period was extended 87 days while state post-
conviction relief was pending, thus extending the one year filing period to
December 26, 2005.
Mr. Seward did not file his petition in federal court before December 2005.
Rather, on June 16, 2006, Mr. Seward filed a new state court action seeking post
conviction relief. Only after receiving an unfavorable ruling from the OCCA in
his second state court action on January 26, 2007, did Mr. Seward seek habeas
relief in federal district court on February 27, 2007. Mr. Seward’s June 16, 2006,
application for state post-conviction relief was filed after the one-year period had
expired, and thus did not toll the limitations period. See Fisher v. Gibson, 262
F.3d 1135, 1142-43 (10th Cir. 2001) (holding that a collateral petition filed in
state court after AEDPA’s limitations period has expired does not serve to toll
AEDPA’s limitations period). Mr. Seward’s February 27, 2007, filing in federal
court was therefore untimely.
Having determined that Mr. Seward’s ineffective assistance of counsel
claims are time-barred under § 2244, we consider whether he may be entitled to
equitable tolling. Mr. Seward disputes the district’s court’s decision not to apply
the equitable tolling doctrine to his untimely claims. He advances two theories.
First, Mr. Seward contends that equitable tolling was appropriate because state
-6-
actors, who are not identified in Mr. Seward’s briefs, impeded his access to
important records and state and federal courts. Second, Mr. Seward argues that
actual innocence claims – he characterizes his petition as such – are categorically
exempt from § 2244’s limitations period.
We agree with the recommendation of the magistrate judge, which the
district court adopted in this case. Under “rare and exceptional circumstances,”
Gibson v. Klinger, 232 F.3d 799, 808 (10th Cir. 2000), § 2244’s limitations
period may be subject to equitable tolling if application of the rule would render
the habeas remedy “inadequate and ineffective.” Miller v. Marr, 141 F.3d 976,
978 (10th Cir. 1998). Equitable tolling is appropriate only when a petitioner
“demonstrates that the failure to timely file was caused by extraordinary
circumstances beyond his control.” Marsh v. Soares, 223 F.3d 1217, 1220 (10th
Cir. 2000).
Mr. Seward has failed to meet this burden. While Mr. Seward contends
that the state impeded his ability to research his access to records, he puts forward
no evidence of an impediment. Further, Mr. Seward’s assertion that claims of
actual innocence are categorically entitled to equitable tolling is without merit. In
any event, Mr. Seward’s briefs fail to lay out a factual basis for his innocence
claim. Thus, Mr. Seward has not shown 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
-7-
was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack, 529 U.S. at 484.
III. CONCLUSION
For reasons provided above, we DENY Mr. Seward’s request for a COA
and DISMISS this matter.
Entered for the Court,
ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk
-8-