McElhaney v. Bear
700 F. App'x 872
10th Cir.2017Background
- In July 2010 Albert McElhaney pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and related offenses and received a 50-year sentence.
- He moved to withdraw his plea in September 2010; the trial court denied the motion and he did not appeal that denial.
- He later filed two state post-conviction motions; both were denied.
- McElhaney filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in March 2016.
- The State moved to dismiss as time-barred under the one-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d); McElhaney argued for equitable tolling and that actual innocence tolled the limitations period.
- The district court dismissed the petition as time-barred, found no evidentiary support for equitable tolling or actual innocence, and denied a certificate of appealability (COA). The Tenth Circuit denied a COA and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McElhaney's § 2254 petition was timely under § 2244(d) | McElhaney contends statutory time ran until he filed in 2016 because he was prevented from timely filing | State asserts the petition is time-barred by § 2244(d) | Court held petition was time-barred; district court's procedural ruling not reasonably debatable |
| Whether equitable tolling applies | McElhaney asserted prison officials restricted library access and his disabilities impeded exhaustion, justifying tolling | State disputed absence of evidence of extraordinary circumstances or diligence | Court found no specific factual showing of extraordinary circumstances or due diligence, so equitable tolling not warranted |
| Whether actual innocence excuses the statute of limitations | McElhaney claimed actual innocence as a basis to overcome the limitations bar | State argued no new reliable evidence of factual innocence and, in any event, sentence-based claims do not qualify | Court found no evidence of actual innocence and noted actual-innocence exception applies only to factual innocence of the conviction (not noncapital sentence) |
| Whether a COA should issue | McElhaney sought permission to appeal the denial of his habeas petition | State opposed COA, urging that reasonable jurists would not debate the procedural ruling | Court denied COA because jurists would not debate the correctness of the time-bar dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134 (COA requirement and § 2253(c) jurisdictional rules)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (equitable tolling standard for AEDPA)
- McQuiggin v. Perkins, 133 S. Ct. 1924 (actual-innocence gateway to overcome AEDPA time bar)
- Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (actual innocence requires factual, not legal, innocence)
- House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518 (Schlup standard: more likely than not no reasonable juror would convict in light of new evidence)
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (demanding standard for actual-innocence gateway)
- Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (due diligence requirement for equitable tolling)
- Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925 (requiring specific facts to support extraordinary circumstances and diligence)
- Gibson v. Klinger, 232 F.3d 799 (equitable tolling is rare and exceptional)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (standards for granting a COA when denial is on procedural grounds)