United States v. Magallon-Maldanado
701 F. App'x 727
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Esteban Magallon-Maldonado filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion more than one year after his conviction became final and conceded the statutory limitations period had expired.
- He sought equitable tolling, claiming delayed and incorrect assistance from prison counseling staff and a case manager prevented timely acquisition of district court records needed for his motion.
- The district court dismissed the § 2255 motion as untimely for failure to show entitlement to equitable tolling.
- Magallon-Maldonado appealed and requested a certificate of appealability (COA) from the Tenth Circuit to challenge the procedural ruling.
- The Tenth Circuit panel reviewed whether extraordinary circumstances and diligence justified equitable tolling and whether reasonable jurists could debate the district court’s ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether equitable tolling applies to overcome § 2255 one-year limit | Magallon-Maldonado: delayed/incorrect advice from prison counselor and case manager prevented timely obtaining records and filing | Government/District Ct: petitioner did not show extraordinary circumstances or diligence; ordinary difficulty or negligence insufficient | Denied — equitable tolling not warranted because alleged delays were ordinary difficulties and petitioner could have requested records from the clerk earlier |
| Whether negligent or unhelpful prison staff advice constitutes "extraordinary circumstances" | Argues staff misinformation prevented timely action | Court: unhelpful or negligent advice is not the high standard required; negligence by counsel insufficient | Denied — not extraordinary |
| Whether petitioner pursued his rights diligently | Petitioner contends he pursued once advised and obtained records after the deadline | Record shows delay and lack of steps that would demonstrate diligence (e.g., requesting records from clerk earlier) | Denied — no demonstrated diligence |
| Whether COA should issue on procedural timeliness ruling | Petitioner seeks COA to appeal denial of equitable tolling | Court: reasonable jurists would not find the procedural ruling debatable | COA denied; appeal dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (equitable tolling requires diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
- United States v. Gabaldon, 522 F.3d 1121 (10th Cir. 2008) (equitable tolling where prison officials completely confiscated inmate's legal materials before deadline)
- Coppage v. McKune, 534 F.3d 1279 (10th Cir. 2008) (standard for COA and procedural rulings)
- Reed v. Timme, [citation="389 F. App'x 850"] (10th Cir. 2010) (ordinary difficulties obtaining records do not meet extraordinary-circumstances standard)
- Fleming v. Evans, 481 F.3d 1249 (10th Cir. 2007) (negligence by habeas counsel does not warrant equitable tolling)
- United States v. Wilson, [citation="631 F. App'x 623"] (10th Cir. 2015) (denial of equitable tolling where petitioner failed to show extraordinary circumstances)