Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Filed: Patrick Fisher
Filed: Patrick Fisher
TENTH CIRCUIT
OCT 11 2001
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
RAISCALLE YOUNG,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
No. 01-7050
(E.D. Oklahoma)
Respondents-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
district court denied that writ upon finding that the writ was barred by the statute
of limitations. The matter is before us on Mr. Youngs application for a certificate
of appealability (COA) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2253(c). To be entitled to a COA
on the issue of whether his petition was timely, Mr. Young must show both that it
is debatable whether the district court was correct in this procedural ruling and
that it is debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a
constitutional right.
See Okla.
Stat. tit. 22, 1051; Rule 4.2, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals, Okla. Stat.
tit. 22, Ch. 18, App. Mr. Youngs conviction thus became final on October 11,
1995, several months before the effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective
Death Penalty Act (AEDPA).
Because Mr. Youngs conviction became final before the effective date of
AEDPA, the limitations period did not begin to run until April 24, 1996.
See
Hoggro v. Boone , 150 F.3d 1223, 1225-26 (10th Cir. 1998). Thus, Mr. Young had
until April 23, 1997 to file his federal habeas petition, unless the limitations
period was tolled. Section 2244(d)(2) tolls the statute of limitations during the
-2-
WL 958747, at *6 (10th Cir. Aug. 22, 2001). The district court did not address
whether equitable tolling, which may be applied only in rare and exceptional
circumstances was relevant.
claim and is therefore barred from raising it in federal court unless he can show
either (1) cause for the failure to appeal and prejudice resulting therefrom, or (2)
that the denial of habeas would result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice.
See Coleman v. Thompson , 501 U.S. 722, 750 (1991).
The lengthy gap between Mr. Youngs conviction and his pursual of postconviction relief precludes any claim that he diligently pursued his federal claims.
Accordingly, equitable tolling is not available to Mr. Young, and his petition was
properly dismissed as untimely. Mr. Youngs petition for a COA is DENIED and
the appeal is DISMISSED. His application to proceed in forma pauperis is
GRANTED.
Robert H. Henry
Circuit Judge
-4-