Lopez v. Trani, 628 F.3d 1228

Lopez, a Colorado state prisoner, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas relief seeking to overturn his rape conviction.
The district court dismissed three claims as not cognizable because they alleged errors in state post-conviction proceedings, and dismissed the other claims as time-barred under AEDPA without tolling.
On appeal, Lopez argues the district court erred in dismissing post-conviction-related claims, erred in calculating the AEDPA limitations period, and erred in denying equitable tolling based on actual innocence.
We held that district court properly dismissed post-conviction-only claims as not cognizable federal habeas claims under Sellers v. Ward and related authority.
We held also that the limitations-period calculations were correct for the claims Lopez relied upon to toll or excuse tardiness, noting the filings did not satisfy state filing requirements.
We recognized an exception allowing equitable tolling for actual innocence under Schlup and Coleman, and held Lopez could proceed on that basis as to the actual innocence claim, but we ultimately denied a certificate of appealability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether post-conviction-only claims are cognizable	Lopez argues these claims state a federal claim.	Trani argues they only challenge state post-conviction remedies, not the conviction.	Claims dismissed as not cognizable federal habeas claims.
Whether the AEDPA limitations period was correctly calculated	Lopez contends tolling should apply due to filings meeting state requirements.	State filings were not properly filed, so tolling does not apply.	Limitations calculation upheld; filings deemed not properly filed.
Whether equitable tolling based on actual innocence applies	Lopez contends actual innocence supports tolling to overcome the bar.	The district court rejected tolling absent diligence; standard should apply.	Actual-innocence tolling recognized; district court erred in rejecting it on lack of diligence, but COA denied on overall appeal.
Whether reasonable jurists would debate the petition's claims	Lopez asserts substantial substantive claims warrant merits review.	State argues the claims are not debatable or cognizable.	Reasonable jurists would not debate the petitioner's grounds for relief; COA denied.

Sellers v. Ward, 135 F.3d 1333 (10th Cir. 1998) (state post-conviction errors not cognizable federal habeas claims)
Robinson v. Golder, 443 F.3d 718 (10th Cir. 2006) (properly filed state post-conviction applications required for tolling)
Gibson v. Klinger, 232 F.3d 799 (10th Cir. 2000) (AEDPA’s one-year limitations tolling is rare; actual innocence can justify tolling under Schlup)
Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (U.S. 1995) (actual innocence gateway to review; rare exception to procedural bars)
Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (U.S. 1991) (actual innocence and fundamental miscarriage of justice exceptions to procedural default)
Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1986) (exception to procedural default when actual innocence results in miscarriage of justice)
Fero v. Kerby, 39 F.3d 1462 (10th Cir. 1994) (equitable tolling requires diligence; actual innocence tolling as rare exception)