United States v. Denny
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 20020
| 10th Cir. | 2012Background
- Defendant Denny, a federal inmate, seeks a COA to appeal the district court’s § 2255 dismissal as time-barred under AEDPA § 2255(f).
- AEDPA limits a § 2255 motion to one year from specified dates; here, the district court considered the filing untimely under § 2255(f).
- Denny alleged ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to file a timely appeal after sentencing, with the basis rooted in a clerk’s September 2008 notice that no appeal had been filed.
- Denny’s § 2255 motion was filed November 2, 2009, with a purported October 20, 2009 mailing date; the prison mailbox rule was discussed but not dispositive.
- The magistrate judge held that timeliness was the key issue and that equitable tolling and similar doctrines did not excuse lateness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does the § 2255(f)(4) discovery rule start? | Denny argues discovery began when clerk indicated no appeal was filed. | Denny contends additional diligence could extend the period. | Discovery began when clerk notified no appeal; period ran within one year. |
| Is Denny entitled to actual innocence tolling for noncapital sentence? | Actual innocence could excuse timeliness for noncapital sentence. | Innocence tolling does not apply to noncapital sentences. | Not applicable; actual innocence tolling does not excuse untimeliness here. |
| Does § 2255(f)(2) provide an impediment tolling? | Governmental action impeded filing by attorney’s failure. | Impediment arose but was removed well before filing. | No tolling; impediment removed long before filing. |
| Are circumstances entitling to equitable tolling? | Inmate misled him; segregation limited access; slow document response justified tolling. | Ignorance of the law and reliance on others do not excuse delays; limited segregation did not preclude timely filing. | No equitable tolling; district court did not abuse discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Price v. Philpot, 420 F.3d 1158 (10th Cir. 2005) (prison mailbox rule not mandatory for accrual timing)
- Gabaldon v. United States, 522 F.3d 1121 (10th Cir. 2008) (actual innocence exception to timeliness)
- Marsh v. Soares, 223 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2000) (ignorance of the law not a defense to tolling)
- Flores-Ortega v. Roe, 528 U.S. 470 (U.S. 2000) (attorney failure to file an appeal affects notice)
- Credit Suisse Sec. (USA) LLC v. Simmonds, 132 S. Ct. 1414 (U.S. 2012) (equitable tolling limits when plaintiff aware of facts)
- Wims v. United States, 225 F.3d 186 (2d Cir. 2000) (discovery rule applies to accrual of federal claims)
- Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549 (U.S. 2000) (discovery accrual when facts become reasonably ascertainable)