Burris v. McCollum
663 F. App'x 607
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Burris pleaded nolo contendere (Jan 15, 1999) to multiple counts of Indecent and Lewd Acts with a Child in Oklahoma and received two consecutive 20-year sentences.
- He did not appeal his convictions but filed state post-conviction petitions in 2000, Jan 2015, and May 2015; all were denied.
- On May 5, 2016 Burris filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 raising six claims.
- The district court dismissed Claims 1–3 as time-barred under the AEDPA one-year limitations rule, rejecting statutory tolling, equitable tolling, and actual-innocence gateway arguments.
- The district court dismissed Claims 4–6 as not cognizable in a § 2254 proceeding (claim 4 better as a § 1983 civil rights action; claim 5 challenges execution/transfer of sentence and state-law matters; claim 6 seeks mandamus against state courts).
- Burris sought a certificate of appealability (COA); the Tenth Circuit denied the COA, dismissed the appeal, and denied in forma pauperis status, ordering immediate payment of fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Claims 1–3 under § 2244(d)(1) | Burris contends claims are timely or tolled | State argues AEDPA limitations expired; no qualifying state petition during limitations | Court: Claims 1–3 untimely; dismissal affirmed |
| Statutory tolling under § 2244(d)(2) | Burris relies on state post-conviction filings to toll limitations | State: filings were outside the limitations period and thus do not toll | Court: No statutory tolling available |
| Equitable tolling / diligence / actual innocence gateway | Burris asserts grounds warrant equitable tolling or actual-innocence exception | State argues Burris was not diligent and has no credible actual-innocence showing | Court: Equitable tolling denied for lack of diligence; actual-innocence claim not remotely credible |
| Cognizability of Claims 4–6 in § 2254 | Burris argues these claims raise federal issues warranting habeas relief | State contends claims are civil-rights, § 2241/execution, or mandamus/state-court matters not cognizable in § 2254 | Court: Claims 4–6 are not cognizable in § 2254 (should be brought under other remedies); dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (review for COA standards)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (procedural-dismissal COA standard)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (equitable tolling standard)
- McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (actual-innocence gateway to tolling)
- Montez v. McKinna, 208 F.3d 862 (limits on federal habeas and cognizability issues)
- Burger v. Scott, 317 F.3d 1133 (standard of review for equitable tolling denial)
- Knox v. Bland, 632 F.3d 1290 (mandamus relief against state courts unavailable in federal court)
- Rolland v. Primesource Staffing, L.L.C., 497 F.3d 1077 (standards for denying in forma pauperis when appeal lacks non-frivolous argument)