Woodward v. Cline
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18879
| 10th Cir. | 2012Background
- Woodward, a Kansas state prisoner, seeks a COA to appeal the denial of his §2254 application; the district court dismissed as untimely.
- Conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Kansas Supreme Court on Jan 21, 1994; finality predates AEDPA.
- In 1994 Woodward filed a DNA-discovery motion in state court; it sought testing but not relief from the judgment.
- Woodward pursued multiple state-court postconviction motions and federal proceedings regarding DNA testing and plea challenges between 1994 and 2011.
- In May 2011 Woodward filed the present §2254 application in federal court; the district court dismissed as untimely.
- The Tenth Circuit affirms: a postconviction discovery motion does not toll AEDPA’s time limits and Woodward’s application is untimely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 1994 DNA discovery motion tolls AEDPA time | Woodward argues §2244(d)(2) tolls time. | Woodward’s motion is discovery, not collateral review; tolling does not apply. | The motion did not toll AEDPA; discovery motions that do not seek reexamination do not toll. |
| Whether actual-innocence tolling applies | Actual innocence entitles tolling. | Actual-innocence tolling is rare and not satisfied here. | Not entitled to equitable tolling based on alleged actual innocence. |
| Whether Jimenez v. Quarterman affects finality timing | Conviction not final until 2011, delaying start of AEDPA. | No out-of-time direct appeal granted; finality occurred earlier. | Jimenez does not apply; judgment was final before 2011. |
| Whether the State waived timeliness challenges | State somehow waived timeliness defense. | State timely raised timeliness defense. | Waiver argument is frivolous; the State properly challenged timeliness. |
| Overall timeliness and COA eligibility | Application timely due to tolling and exceptions. | AEDPA deadline elapsed well before filing. | No COA; petition untimely; appeal dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wall v. Kohli, 131 S. Ct. 1278 (2011) (collateral discovery not tolling unless reexamination of judgment is sought)
- Brown v. Sec. for Dep’t of Corr., 530 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir. 2008) (discovery motions generally do not toll AEDPA)
- Price v. Pierce, 617 F.3d 947 (7th Cir. 2010) (discovery motions not tolling AEDPA period)
- Hodge v. Greiner, 269 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2001) (state-court discovery requests do not toll AEDPA)
- Ramirez v. Yates, 571 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 2009) (followed Hodge: discovery motions do not toll)
- H Hutson v. Quarterman, 508 F.3d 236 (5th Cir. 2007) ( tolling considerations in DNA-related motions)
- Jimenez v. Quarterman, 555 U.S. 113 (2009) (timing of finality when out-of-time appeal granted)
- House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518 (2006) (actual-innocence gateway tolling standard)
- Fleming v. Evans, 481 F.3d 1249 (10th Cir. 2007) (standard for AEDPA timeliness in the Tenth Circuit)
- Allen v. Siebert, 552 U.S. 3 (2007) (AEDPA start date if conviction predated 1996)