Prendergast v. Clements
699 F.3d 1182
10th Cir.2012Background
- Prendergast, a Colorado state prisoner acting pro se, seeks a certificate of appealability and in forma pauperis status to challenge a federal habeas corpus denial under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
- He was convicted by a jury in Arapahoe County on twelve counts of securities fraud and one count of theft over $15,000, with concurrent probationary terms; the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Colorado Supreme Court denied certiorari.
- After violating probation, he was resentenced in August 2009 to concurrent six-year Colorado Department of Corrections terms; the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed this resentencing in March 2011, and he did not seek further Colorado Supreme Court review.
- On December 13, 2011, Prendergast filed a federal habeas petition raising five claims: two challenging the 2009 resentencing and three challenging the 2003 conviction.
- The district court dismissed the 2009 resentencing claims for failure to exhaust state remedies and dismissed the 2003 conviction claims as untimely under AEDPA.
- The court of appeals den1ies a certificate of appealability, denies in forma pauperis status, and dismisses the matter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion of state remedies for 2009 resentencing claims | Prendergast contends exhaustion should not bar review because the claims involve federal due process and double jeopardy. | State argues the 2009 claims were not fairly presented as federal claims, thus not exhausted. | Exhaustion not satisfied; claims dismissed. |
| AEDPA timeliness of 2003 conviction claims | Walker-based tolling should render timely the untimely 2003 claims. | Walker tolling rejected; apply claim-by-claim AEDPA limitations; untimely. | Untimeliness upheld; claims time-barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270 (1971) (fair presentation prerequisites for federal habeas review)
- Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364 (1995) (exhaustion requires fair notice to state courts)
- O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (1999) (procedural default rules require proper state-court consideration)
- Edwards v. Carpenter, 529 U.S. 446 (2000) (ineffective-assistance claims must be raised in state court first)
- Walker v. Crosby, 341 F.3d 1240 (11th Cir. 2003) (holding that one timely claim can render others timely under Walker)
- Fielder v. Varner, 379 F.3d 113 (3d Cir. 2004) (rejects Walker's approach; adopts claim-by-claim AEDPA timing)