Milton v. Allbaugh
17-6130
| 10th Cir. | Dec 6, 2017Background
- Charlie M. Milton, Jr. pleaded guilty in Oklahoma state court (Jan 24, 2014) to multiple drug offenses and was sentenced to concurrent terms (including a 30-year term). Conviction became final on Feb 3, 2014.
- On Nov 5, 2014 Milton filed a short "Motion to Amend Information" claiming newly discovered material; the Oklahoma court denied it on Mar 2, 2015.
- Milton filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on Dec 23, 2016 seeking resentencing or vacation of his sentence and alleging ineffective assistance, illegal statute, timeliness, merits, and double jeopardy claims.
- The State moved to dismiss as time-barred under AEDPA; the magistrate judge and district court agreed and denied a certificate of appealability (COA).
- Milton appealed pro se, seeking a COA and permission to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP); the Tenth Circuit considered statutory tolling, equitable tolling, and the IFP request.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Milton’s Nov 2014 Motion to Amend tolled AEDPA under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) | Motion qualified as a state collateral proceeding that stayed the limitations period | Motion did not request judicial reexamination of conviction/sentence and thus is not collateral review | Motion did not trigger statutory tolling; reasonable jurists would not debate this |
| Whether Milton is entitled to equitable tolling due to inadequate law library access | Lack of adequate law library prevented timely filing, warranting equitable tolling | Library access alone is insufficient; no other extraordinary diligence or circumstances shown | Equitable tolling denied; reasonable jurists would not debate this |
| Whether COA should issue for appeal of denial of § 2254 petition | Milton contends procedural rulings and merits are debatable | COA requires substantial showing and, for procedural dismissals, that jurists could debate the correctness of timeliness ruling | COA denied because Milton did not meet the standard |
| Whether Milton may proceed IFP on appeal | Milton requested IFP based on indigence | Court requires a nonfrivolous, reasoned argument to permit IFP for appeals; absent that, fee must be paid | IFP denied; ordered immediate payment of appellate filing fee |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (COA prerequisite for habeas appeals; substantial showing standard)
- Woodward v. Cline, 693 F.3d 1289 (10th Cir. 2012) (motion for DNA testing did not constitute collateral review triggering § 2244(d)(2) tolling)
- Wall v. Kholi, 562 U.S. 545 (2011) (definition of "collateral review" requiring judicial reexamination)
- Coppage v. McKune, 534 F.3d 1279 (10th Cir. 2008) (double-hurdle for COA when district court denies on procedural grounds)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (standard for COA where dismissal rests on procedural grounds)
- Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925 (10th Cir. 2008) (equitable tolling is rare and applied sparingly)
- Gibson v. Klinger, 232 F.3d 799 (10th Cir. 2000) (insufficient law library access, standing alone, does not justify equitable tolling)