Sellers v. Wyoming Attorney General
682 F. App'x 671
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2008 Sellers pleaded guilty in Wyoming to three counts of second-degree sexual abuse of a minor and was sentenced on October 10, 2008 to three consecutive 5–10 year terms.
- On September 23, 2009 Sellers moved under Wyoming Rule of Criminal Procedure 35 for a sentence reduction; the state court granted the motion on October 27, 2009 and converted Count III to probation contingent on completion of Counts I and II.
- Sellers sought state habeas relief in the Wyoming Supreme Court on June 3, 2016; the court denied relief on June 28, 2016.
- Sellers filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in district court on July 25, 2016; the district court dismissed it as untimely, concluding the § 2244(d)(1) limitations period expired on December 15, 2009 even with statutory tolling and denied equitable tolling because Sellers’ ignorance of the law was not an extraordinary circumstance.
- Sellers, proceeding pro se, sought a certificate of appealability (COA) and leave to proceed in forma pauperis to appeal the district court’s dismissal; the Tenth Circuit granted in forma pauperis but denied the COA and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a COA should issue to appeal dismissal of § 2254 petition as untimely | Sellers contends the district court erred and that equitable tolling should apply to excuse his delay | District court argues petition was untimely and Sellers’ ignorance of the law does not warrant equitable tolling | COA denied; reasonable jurists would not debate the district court’s timeliness ruling |
| Whether statutory tolling under § 2244(d)(2) extended limitations past Dec. 15, 2009 | Sellers implicitly argues tolling/other facts make petition timely | District court found statutory tolling insufficient to avoid expiration on Dec. 15, 2009 | Court agreed statutory tolling did not save the petition |
| Whether equitable tolling of the AEDPA limitations period is available | Sellers argues extraordinary circumstances justify tolling (pro se claim of ignorance) | Respondent argues ignorance of law is not an extraordinary circumstance; abuse-of-discretion review supports denial | Court held district court did not abuse its discretion denying equitable tolling |
| Whether the procedural dismissal nonetheless warrants appellate review (COA standard) | Sellers asserts issues are debatable and deserve encouragement to proceed | Court applies Miller-El and Slack standards requiring substantial showing of constitutional denial; finds standard unmet | Court found no substantial showing and denied COA |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (standard for granting a certificate of appealability)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (when dismissal is on procedural grounds COA requires debate on both claim and procedural ruling)
- Marsh v. Soares, 223 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2000) (ignorance of the law generally does not justify equitable tolling)
- Burger v. Scott, 317 F.3d 1133 (10th Cir. 2003) (equitable-tolling determinations reviewed for abuse of discretion)