F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 18 1999 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER Clerk
LARRY D. KIEL,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v. No. 98-6208 (D.C. No. CIV-97-1737) H. N. SCOTT, (W.D. Okla.)
Respondent-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before PORFILIO , BARRETT , and KELLY , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. Petitioner-Appellant Larry D. Kiel appeals from the district court’s order
dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. This matter
comes before us on petitioner’s application for a certificate of appealability
(COA). See id. § 2253(c). We deny COA and dismiss the appeal.
Appellant was convicted in 1992 of various drug offenses and given
sentences of 1000 years’ imprisonment for trafficking in illegal drugs, 1000 years
for possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute,
250 years for possession of a controlled dangerous substance without a tax stamp,
250 years for maintaining a vehicle where a controlled dangerous substance is
kept, and one year and $1,000 fine for possession of drug paraphernalia, all after
former conviction of two or more felonies. After unsuccessfully pursuing his
remedies in the Oklahoma courts, he filed this habeas petition.
The district court dismissed appellant’s petition as untimely. It noted that
he filed his petition after the enactment of AEDPA, and so a one-year period of
limitation applies. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). This limitation period began
running on the date on which the appellant’s judgment of conviction became final
by conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time to seek such review.
See id. § 2244(d)(1)(A).
-2- Appellant’s judgments of conviction became final for purposes of §
2244(d) on July 30, 1996, and the one-year period began running on that date. 1
The one-year time limit is tolled, however, during any time a properly filed
application for state post-conviction relief is pending. See § 2244(d)(2).
On April 16, 1997, within the one-year limitation period, appellant filed an
application for post-conviction relief with the Oklahoma County district court.
This suspended the running of the limitations period, with 105 days remaining.
The state district court subsequently denied appellant’s application for
post-conviction relief on May 21, 1997. The remaining 105 days of the one-year
period ran out on September 3, 1997. Appellant did not file his habeas petition
until October 29, 1997, some fifty-six days beyond the expiration of the statute of
limitations. He now contends, however, that he was entitled to a further tolling of
the limitations statute which would make his petition timely.
1 An emergency panel of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed appellant’s convictions on direct appeal on June 9, 1995. That court subsequently denied his petition for review of the panel opinion on May 1, 1996. Appellant did not seek certiorari review by the Supreme Court within the ninety days permitted by Supreme Court Rule 13(1), making his conviction final at the end of the ninety-day period. The district court erroneously calculated the ninety-day period as ending on July 31, 1996, rather than July 30.
-3- 1. Statutory tolling
Appellant argues that he was entitled to an additional statutory tolling
period for the time that his appeal from the denial of post-conviction relief was
pending in the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. He filed his appeal in the
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals on June 23, 1997. That court denied
jurisdiction of the appeal by order entered September 8, 1997, concluding that the
appeal had not been timely filed. Because the appeal was untimely, the federal
district court concluded that it was not “properly filed” within the meaning of
§ 2244(d)(2) and therefore did not further toll the statute of limitations. See
Lovasz v. Vaughn , 134 F.3d 146, 148 (3d Cir. 1998) (“Properly filed” application,
for purposes of § 2244(d), is one that has been “submitted according to the state’s
procedural requirements, such as the rules governing the time and place of
filing.”) . We agree.
Appellant asserts, however, that his appeal was timely because he handed
the paperwork necessary to perfect his appeal to his jailers within the deadline set
by Oklahoma law. The district court properly rejected this argument, noting that
the “prison mailbox rule” developed in Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988)
does not apply to criminal matters filed in the Oklahoma Court of Criminal
Appeals. See, e.g. , Banks v. State , 953 P.2d 344, 345-47 (Okla. Ct. Crim. App.
-4- 1998). We agree with the district court that appellant was not entitled to a further
statutory tolling period based on his untimely appeal.
2. Equitable tolling
Appellant argues, alternatively, that even if he did not meet the statutory
criteria for tolling, the district court should have equitably tolled the running of
the time period for filing a habeas petition during the time his appeal was
pending. See Miller v. Marr , 141 F.3d 976, 978 (10th Cir.) (holding that
limitation period imposed by § 2244 is not jurisdictional but rather is subject to
equitable tolling), cert. denied , 119 S. Ct. 210 (1998). The district court rejected
the application of equitable tolling, stating that appellant had not shown any
extraordinary reason why he could not have prepared and filed his petition by the
deadline.
In determining whether equitable tolling is appropriate, we recognize that
“[d]ismissal of a first federal habeas petition is a particularly serious matter, for
that dismissal denies the petitioner the protections of the Great Writ entirely,
risking injury to an important interest in human liberty.” Lonchar v. Thomas ,
517 U.S. 314, 324 (1996). At the same time, equitable tolling also should not be
used to thwart the intent of Congress in establishing a statute of limitations for
habeas claims. See Calderon v. United States Dist. Ct. , 128 F.3d 1283, 1288
(9th Cir. 1997) (stating that equitable tolling should be granted only if
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 18 1999 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER Clerk
LARRY D. KIEL,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v. No. 98-6208 (D.C. No. CIV-97-1737) H. N. SCOTT, (W.D. Okla.)
Respondent-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before PORFILIO , BARRETT , and KELLY , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. Petitioner-Appellant Larry D. Kiel appeals from the district court’s order
dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. This matter
comes before us on petitioner’s application for a certificate of appealability
(COA). See id. § 2253(c). We deny COA and dismiss the appeal.
Appellant was convicted in 1992 of various drug offenses and given
sentences of 1000 years’ imprisonment for trafficking in illegal drugs, 1000 years
for possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute,
250 years for possession of a controlled dangerous substance without a tax stamp,
250 years for maintaining a vehicle where a controlled dangerous substance is
kept, and one year and $1,000 fine for possession of drug paraphernalia, all after
former conviction of two or more felonies. After unsuccessfully pursuing his
remedies in the Oklahoma courts, he filed this habeas petition.
The district court dismissed appellant’s petition as untimely. It noted that
he filed his petition after the enactment of AEDPA, and so a one-year period of
limitation applies. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). This limitation period began
running on the date on which the appellant’s judgment of conviction became final
by conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time to seek such review.
See id. § 2244(d)(1)(A).
-2- Appellant’s judgments of conviction became final for purposes of §
2244(d) on July 30, 1996, and the one-year period began running on that date. 1
The one-year time limit is tolled, however, during any time a properly filed
application for state post-conviction relief is pending. See § 2244(d)(2).
On April 16, 1997, within the one-year limitation period, appellant filed an
application for post-conviction relief with the Oklahoma County district court.
This suspended the running of the limitations period, with 105 days remaining.
The state district court subsequently denied appellant’s application for
post-conviction relief on May 21, 1997. The remaining 105 days of the one-year
period ran out on September 3, 1997. Appellant did not file his habeas petition
until October 29, 1997, some fifty-six days beyond the expiration of the statute of
limitations. He now contends, however, that he was entitled to a further tolling of
the limitations statute which would make his petition timely.
1 An emergency panel of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed appellant’s convictions on direct appeal on June 9, 1995. That court subsequently denied his petition for review of the panel opinion on May 1, 1996. Appellant did not seek certiorari review by the Supreme Court within the ninety days permitted by Supreme Court Rule 13(1), making his conviction final at the end of the ninety-day period. The district court erroneously calculated the ninety-day period as ending on July 31, 1996, rather than July 30.
-3- 1. Statutory tolling
Appellant argues that he was entitled to an additional statutory tolling
period for the time that his appeal from the denial of post-conviction relief was
pending in the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. He filed his appeal in the
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals on June 23, 1997. That court denied
jurisdiction of the appeal by order entered September 8, 1997, concluding that the
appeal had not been timely filed. Because the appeal was untimely, the federal
district court concluded that it was not “properly filed” within the meaning of
§ 2244(d)(2) and therefore did not further toll the statute of limitations. See
Lovasz v. Vaughn , 134 F.3d 146, 148 (3d Cir. 1998) (“Properly filed” application,
for purposes of § 2244(d), is one that has been “submitted according to the state’s
procedural requirements, such as the rules governing the time and place of
filing.”) . We agree.
Appellant asserts, however, that his appeal was timely because he handed
the paperwork necessary to perfect his appeal to his jailers within the deadline set
by Oklahoma law. The district court properly rejected this argument, noting that
the “prison mailbox rule” developed in Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988)
does not apply to criminal matters filed in the Oklahoma Court of Criminal
Appeals. See, e.g. , Banks v. State , 953 P.2d 344, 345-47 (Okla. Ct. Crim. App.
-4- 1998). We agree with the district court that appellant was not entitled to a further
statutory tolling period based on his untimely appeal.
2. Equitable tolling
Appellant argues, alternatively, that even if he did not meet the statutory
criteria for tolling, the district court should have equitably tolled the running of
the time period for filing a habeas petition during the time his appeal was
pending. See Miller v. Marr , 141 F.3d 976, 978 (10th Cir.) (holding that
limitation period imposed by § 2244 is not jurisdictional but rather is subject to
equitable tolling), cert. denied , 119 S. Ct. 210 (1998). The district court rejected
the application of equitable tolling, stating that appellant had not shown any
extraordinary reason why he could not have prepared and filed his petition by the
deadline.
In determining whether equitable tolling is appropriate, we recognize that
“[d]ismissal of a first federal habeas petition is a particularly serious matter, for
that dismissal denies the petitioner the protections of the Great Writ entirely,
risking injury to an important interest in human liberty.” Lonchar v. Thomas ,
517 U.S. 314, 324 (1996). At the same time, equitable tolling also should not be
used to thwart the intent of Congress in establishing a statute of limitations for
habeas claims. See Calderon v. United States Dist. Ct. , 128 F.3d 1283, 1288
(9th Cir. 1997) (stating that equitable tolling should be granted only if
-5- “extraordinary circumstances” beyond a prisoner’s control make it impossible
to file his petition on time), cert. denied , 118 S. Ct. 899, 1389 (1998).
Equitable tolling has historically been limited to situations where the
petitioner “has actively pursued his judicial remedies by filing a defective
proceeding during the statutory period, or where the [petitioner] has been induced
or tricked by his adversary’s misconduct into allowing the filing deadline to
pass.” Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs , 498 U.S. 89, 96 (1990)
(footnotes omitted). Thus, equitable tolling may be appropriate where a
petitioner has been deceived by an incorrect representation by an adversary, court
or agency. See Johnson v. United States Postal Serv. , 861 F.2d 1475, 1481
(10th Cir. 1988). That has not occurred in this case and appellant’s pleading was
filed outside the deadline. Although a petitioner’s diligence in pursuing a claim
is a prerequisite for equitable tolling, it is not sufficient in and of itself.
We recognize that the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals would not
publish its rejection of the mailbox rule until after appellant had handed his
paperwork to the prison authorities. See Hunnicutt v. State , 952 P.2d 988
(Okla. Ct. Crim. App. 1997). Given the statutory jurisdiction and independence
of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals over criminal matters, however,
we are not persuaded that a petitioner could reasonably rely upon the Oklahoma
Supreme Court’s prior adoption of a mailbox rule for any other court. At best,
-6- such reliance would constitute a mistake of law solely attributable to appellant,
generally an improper basis for equitable tolling.
While it is true that appellant did not learn that his appeal had been rejected
for untimeliness until September 8, 1997, five days after the one-year federal
habeas limitation period had passed, we are simply unable to find that this
(appellate delay) constitutes an extraordinary circumstance that somehow could
excuse a protective federal filing, even given the importance of exhausting state
remedies, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1).
Because we are not empowered to expand the reach of federal equitable
tolling solely for federal habeas claims, we must agree with the district court
that equitable tolling cannot save this petition.
Appellant’s application for a COA is DENIED, and this appeal is
DISMISSED.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge
-7-