Campbell v. Wilkinson
684 F. App'x 709
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Michael A. Campbell, proceeding pro se, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his Oklahoma robbery convictions.
- Magistrate judge found Campbell’s convictions became final no later than June 30, 2010, making the § 2254 petition due by June 30, 2011 under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
- The magistrate recommended dismissal as untimely and found Campbell failed to show entitlement to statutory or equitable tolling.
- The district court adopted the Report and Recommendation and dismissed the § 2254 petition with prejudice as time-barred.
- Campbell sought a certificate of appealability (COA) and to proceed in forma pauperis to appeal the dismissal; the Tenth Circuit reviewed whether reasonable jurists could debate the timeliness and equitable tolling rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Campbell’s § 2254 petition was filed within the one-year limitations period | Campbell contends his petition should not be time-barred (asserts grounds warrant tolling or different start date) | The State argues the conviction became final by June 30, 2010, so petition due by June 30, 2011 and Campbell filed late | Court held petition untimely; dismissal not reasonably debatable |
| Whether statutory tolling under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) applies | Campbell argues circumstances entitled him to statutory tolling | The State argues no pending state collateral proceedings that would toll the statute during the limitations period | Court held Campbell failed to show statutory tolling applies |
| Whether equitable tolling of the limitations period is warranted | Campbell argues equitable tolling should apply due to his circumstances | The State argues Campbell did not show extraordinary circumstances or diligence required for equitable tolling | Court held equitable tolling not warranted; district court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether a certificate of appealability should issue | Campbell requests COA to appeal the timeliness dismissal | Respondent argues no substantial showing of constitutional denial and issues are not debatable | Court denied COA; reasonable jurists would not debate timeliness or tolling rulings |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (COA standard; what petitioner must show to obtain COA)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (standard when dismissal is on procedural grounds: petitioner must show both constitutional claim debatable and procedural ruling debatable)
- Miller v. Marr, 141 F.3d 976 (10th Cir. 1998) (equitable tolling standard)
- Burger v. Scott, 317 F.3d 1133 (10th Cir. 2003) (review of equitable tolling denial for abuse of discretion)
- Watkins v. Leyba, 543 F.3d 624 (10th Cir. 2008) (standard for in forma pauperis on appeal; nonfrivolous, reasoned argument required)