Whiteside v. McCollum
708 F. App'x 928
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Whiteside, an Oklahoma prisoner, was sentenced in Sept. 2013 to life plus 125 years on firearm and assault charges; OCCA affirmed on Jan. 8, 2015.
- Conviction became final April 8, 2015 (90 days after OCCA decision); AEDPA one-year filing deadline expired April 11, 2016 (extended because April 9 was a Saturday).
- Whiteside filed his § 2254 petition on May 26, 2016, after the limitations period had run.
- He argued for equitable tolling based on prolonged 23-hour lockdowns and limited law-library access at Cimarron Correctional Facility during 2014–2015; he did not assert such problems after transfer to Oklahoma State Reformatory in Dec. 2015.
- District court found Whiteside lacked diligence after leaving Cimarron and denied equitable tolling, dismissing the petition as untimely; Whiteside sought a COA and IFP on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of § 2254 filing under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) | Whiteside contends lockdowns and poor law-library access prevented timely filing (equitable tolling) | District court: petition filed after deadline; claimant not diligent post-transfer | Court held petition untimely; equitable tolling denied for lack of diligence |
| Equitable tolling standard application | Tolling warranted due to extraordinary prison conditions impeding access to legal materials | Respondent argues Whiteside failed to pursue rights diligently once conditions changed | Court held even if conditions were extraordinary, Whiteside did not show required diligence after leaving facility |
| Actual-innocence as basis for tolling | Whiteside suggests inability to obtain trial records prevented him from developing actual-innocence evidence to excuse delay | Respondent: no new, reliable evidence of innocence shown | Court held Whiteside offered no new reliable evidence of innocence and identified no explanation how record access prevented producing such evidence |
| Certificate of appealability (COA) | Whiteside sought COA to appeal denial of § 2254 as untimely | Respondent: plain procedural bar; district court correct | Court denied COA and IFP because no reasonable jurist would debate the procedural ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Fleming v. Evans, 481 F.3d 1249 (10th Cir.) (finality of state-court judgment for AEDPA purposes)
- Harris v. Dinwiddie, 642 F.3d 902 (10th Cir.) (calculation of AEDPA deadline when statutory date falls on weekend)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (equitable tolling requires diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (standard for issuing a COA when dismissal is on procedural grounds)
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (actual-innocence gateway requires new, reliable evidence sufficient to undermine confidence in the result)
- Frost v. Pryor, 749 F.3d 1212 (10th Cir.) (clarifying actual-innocence showing for tolling)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (pro se filings are to be liberally construed)