McCoy v. Allbaugh
689 F. App'x 582
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- McCoy, a state prisoner, was convicted in 2013 of conspiracy, armed robbery, and kidnapping; convictions affirmed on direct appeal.
- He filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition in federal court, which the district court dismissed as untimely; final judgment entered April 18, 2016.
- McCoy did not appeal within 30 days; instead he filed a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion on July 8, 2016 (after the 28-day tolling window).
- The district court denied the Rule 60(b) motion; McCoy then filed a notice of appeal (Jan. 30, 2017) and sought a certificate of appealability (COA).
- McCoy argued equitable tolling based on multiple prison lockdowns in 2015 and submitted additional factual detail in his Rule 60(b) motion.
- The Tenth Circuit treated the motion as a true Rule 60(b) challenge to a procedural ruling and denied a COA, concluding the Rule 60(b) motion improperly reargued previously available facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal is timely as to the underlying habeas denial | McCoy implicitly contends delay excused because he later filed Rule 60(b) | District: Rule 60(b) filed after 28-day tolling window; notice of appeal untimely | Appeal from habeas denial is untimely; court lacks jurisdiction |
| Whether denial of Rule 60(b) merits a COA | McCoy presented additional lockdown details supporting equitable tolling | District: Rule 60(b) cannot be used to present facts available at time of original petition | COA denied; denial of Rule 60(b) not debatable — district court did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ceballos-Martinez, 387 F.3d 1140 (10th Cir.) (untimely notice of appeal bars jurisdiction)
- Spitznas v. Boone, 464 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir.) (distinguishing true Rule 60(b) motions from successive habeas petitions)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (U.S.) (standard for issuing a certificate of appealability)
- Miller v. Marr, 141 F.3d 976 (10th Cir.) (equitable tolling requires diligence showing)
- Davis v. Kansas Department of Corrections, 507 F.3d 1246 (10th Cir.) (standard of review for Rule 60(b) denial is abuse of discretion)
- Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005 (10th Cir.) (Rule 60(b) not for reargument of issues with previously available facts)