Jones v. Addison

Filing 920100709

Opinion

Download PDF
U n i t e d States Court of Appeals T e n t h Circuit FILED U N I T E D STATES COURT OF APPEALS T E N T H CIRCUIT J u l y 9, 2010 E l i s a b e t h A. Shumaker C l e r k of Court J A M E S JOHNNY JONES, P e t i t i o n e r - Appellant, v. M I C H A E L K. ADDISON, Warden, R e s p o n d e n t - Appellee. N o . 10-6059 ( D . C . No. 5:09-CV-01231-R) ( W . D . Okla.) ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY B e f o r e KELLY, McKAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges. P e t i t i o n e r - A p p e l l a n t James Johnny Jones, an Oklahoma state inmate p r o c e e d i n g pro se, seeks a certificate of appealability ("COA") allowing him to a p p e a l the district court's treatment of his hybrid 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and 2254 h a b e a s petition: the court denied the § 2241 petition and dismissed the § 2254 p e t i t i o n . Mr. Jones fails to make "a substantial showing of the denial of a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Therefore, we deny his request for a COA, and dismiss the appeal. Mr. Jones's federal habeas petition arises from his state application to p u r s u e an out-of-time appeal. R. 10-11. * According to Mr. Jones, his state a p p l i c a t i o n claimed that he could not pursue post-conviction relief in a timely f a s h i o n because prescription medication incapacitated him for nearly seven years. Id. at 11-12. The state district court denied Mr. Jones's application, and s a n c t i o n e d him 720 earned good time credits for filing a frivolous claim. Id. at 4, 1 9 . The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. Id. at 19. The federal ma g i s t r a t e judge understood Mr. Jones's habeas petition as challenging both the d e n i a l of the state application and the sanction, and treated it as both a § 2241 p e t i t i o n challenging the execution of his sentence and a § 2254 challenge to his c o n v i c t i o n . Id. at 20, 23-25. The magistrate recommended the denial of the § 2 2 4 1 petition, finding a reasonable basis for the sanction, and the dismissal of the § 2254 petition, deeming it time-barred. Id. at 22-25. The district court adopted t h e magistrate's report, denied the § 2241 petition, and dismissed the § 2254 p e t i t i o n . Id. at 33-34. F o r the most part, Mr. Jones's COA application and appellate brief present s u b s t a n t i v e challenges to his conviction which were missing from his habeas p e t i t i o n . COA Application 2-3. Generally, we do not review issues presented for t h e first time on appeal, and Mr. Jones gives us no reason to do so here. See F a i r c h i l d v. Workman, 579 F.3d 1134, 1144 (10th Cir. 2009). Mr. Jones has supplied neither his state court application nor the order d i s p o s i n g of it. Therefore, we rely on his representations. -2- * M r . Jones's application presents one issue appropriate for our review: he a r g u e s that his § 2254 petition was not subject to dismissal as a second or s u c c e s s i v e petition. COA Application 3. A COA should not issue unless "jurists o f reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the d e n i a l of a constitutional right and . . . jurists of reason would find it debatable w h e t h e r the district court was correct in its procedural ruling." Slack v. M c D a n i e l , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Although the magistrate labeled Mr. J o n e s ' s petition "successive," R. 24, the district court dismissed it as time barred, i d . at 34. The magistrate judge's reasoning was sound: Mr. Jones's previous h a b e a s petition was time barred when it was filed more than seven years ago. His c u r r e n t petition is still time barred, unless he can show extraordinary c i r c u ms t a n c e s for equitable tolling. Holland v. Florida, -- S. Ct. --, 2010 WL 2 3 4 6 5 4 9 , at *12 (June 14, 2010); Miller v. Marr, 141 F.3d 976, 978 (10th Cir. 1 9 9 8 ) . Finding Mr. Jones's alleged mental incapacity to be "clearly without me r i t , " the magistrate judge found his petition ineligible for equitable tolling. R. 2 4 - 2 5 . In light of his frequent litigation since the statute of limitations began r u n n i n g , a reasonable jurist would not debate that Mr. Jones's claim is time barred a n d ineligible for equitable tolling. -3- W e DENY a COA, DENY appellant's motion seeking leave to proceed in f o r m a pauperis as moot, and DISMISS the appeal. E n t e r e d for the Court P a u l J. Kelly, Jr. C i r c u i t Judge -4-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?