Bhutto v. Wilson
669 F. App'x 501
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Rehan Ali Bhutto was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder in 2002 and sentenced to life without parole; Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed in 2005.
- Bhutto filed a state post-conviction petition in 2006; the state court dismissed it in 2008 and Bhutto did not seek review.
- He filed a second state post-conviction petition in April 2015, which the state court dismissed as untimely and procedurally barred; Wyoming Supreme Court denied review.
- Bhutto filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on September 16, 2015, claiming ineffective assistance for failure to pursue heat-of-passion and automatism defenses.
- The State moved to dismiss under the one-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1); the district court found the petition over six years late and denied statutory and equitable tolling.
- The Tenth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability, concluding the district court’s time-bar ruling was not reasonably debatable and dismissing the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether state-created impediment tolls § 2244(d)(1) | Bhutto: inability to access transcripts, records, attorney notes from counsel constituted state-created impediment | State: counsel’s failures are not state action and Bhutto did not show documents were necessary to file | Court: No statutory tolling — counsel’s conduct is not state action and Bhutto didn’t show actual impediment |
| Whether equitable tolling applies | Bhutto: lack of access to trial materials prevented timely filing; sought tolling for diligence | State: Bhutto failed to show extraordinary circumstances or diligence over six years | Court: No equitable tolling — failure to receive transcripts is not extraordinary; no shown diligence |
| Whether district court’s procedural ruling is debatable for COA purposes | Bhutto: argues entitlement to statutory and equitable tolling, making procedural ruling debatable | State: procedural time-bar is clear and untolled | Court: Ruling not reasonably debatable; COA denied |
| Whether petitioner may proceed IFP on appeal | Bhutto: sought to proceed in forma pauperis | State: opposed as appeal lacks merit | Court: Motion to proceed IFP denied alongside COA denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller–El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (standard for certificate of appealability)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (standard when district court denies on procedural grounds)
- Krause v. Thaler, 637 F.3d 558 (5th Cir. 2011) (statutory tolling requires state-caused impediment that actually prevented filing)
- Sigala v. Bravo, 656 F.3d 1125 (10th Cir. 2011) (attorney conduct is not state action for tolling)
- Clark v. Oklahoma, 468 F.3d 711 (10th Cir. 2006) (claim development may not require access to certain records)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (equitable tolling requires diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
- Marsh v. Soares, 223 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2000) (equitable tolling standards in Tenth Circuit)
- Heinemann v. Murphy, [citation="401 F. App'x 304"] (10th Cir. 2010) (lack of transcripts is not extraordinary circumstance for equitable tolling)