FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
April 2, 2008
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court
JOSHUA STUMP,
Petitioner-Appellant, No. 07-6109
v. (W.D. Okla.)
STATE OF OKLAHOMA; (D.C. No. CIV-05-397-R)
OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS; LENORA JORDAN,
Warden,
Respondents-Appellees.
ORDER DENYING
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Before HENRY, Chief Circuit Judge, TYMKOVICH and HOLMES, Circuit
Judges.
Joshua Stump, an Oklahoma state prisoner represented by counsel, seeks a
certificate of appealability (“COA”) to appeal the district court’s order dismissing
as time-barred his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. For
substantially the same reasons set forth by the magistrate judge in her
well-reasoned report and recommendation, we agree that Mr. Stump’s petition is
time-barred, deny his application for a COA, and dismiss this matter.
I. BACKGROUND
On April 25, 1996, Mr. Stump pleaded guilty to one count of second-degree
murder in the District Court of Lincoln County, Oklahoma. The court sentenced
him to seventy-five years’ imprisonment.
Mr. Stump did not file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, and he did not
file a direct appeal of his conviction or sentence. However, on February 13,
2004, Mr. Stump filed an application for post-conviction relief in the Lincoln
County District Court. That court denied the post-conviction motion on March 1,
2004. Mr. Stump then filed an appeal of that decision in the Oklahoma Court of
Criminal Appeals (OCCA). On April 26, 2004, the OCCA affirmed the denial of
post-conviction relief.
Subsequently, on April 8, 2005, Mr. Stump filed the instant 28 U.S.C. §
2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the federal district court. Mr. Stump
alleged that his April 1996 guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because it
was based on his counsel’s “unfulfilled assurances.” Aplt’s App. at 8 (Report
and Recommendation, filed Feb. 28, 2007) (quoting Petition). In particular, Mr.
Stump asserted that his counsel had told him that if he pleaded guilty, “he would
be out of prison in seven (7) to nine (9) years.” Id.
Following the recommendation of a magistrate judge, the district court
dismissed Mr. Stump’s petition as time-barred. The court held that Mr. Stump
-2-
had not filed the petition within the one-year period set forth in 28 U.S.C. §
2244(d)(1)(A) and that neither statutory nor equitable tolling was warranted. Mr.
Stump appealed that decision to this court, and, on July 6, 2006, we remanded the
case to the district court and directed it to address the following question:
“Whether a petitioner, alleging that he received mistaken advice from his counsel
regarding parole eligibility, exercises due diligence under [28 U.S.C.] §
2244(d)(1)(D) if he does not file a habeas petition until the asserted parole release
date.” Aplt’s App. at 9 (quoting Order filed July 6, 2006) (alterations in Report
and Recommendation).
On remand, the district court referred the case to a magistrate judge, who
again concluded that Mr. Stump’s petition was time-barred. The magistrate judge
reasoned as follows: Mr. Stump pleaded guilty and was sentenced on April 25,
1996, and he did not attempt to withdraw his guilty plea within the ten-day period
provided by Oklahoma law. See Aplt’s App. at 11 (Report and Recommendation,
citing Rule 4.2(A), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals).
Therefore, his conviction became final on May 6, 1996. See id. at 11 n.3 (“The
tenth calendar day fell on May 5, 1996, which was a Sunday. Thus, Petitioner’s
convictions became final on the following business day, which was Monday,
May 6, 1996. See O KLA . S TAT . tit. 12 § 2006(A)”). However, Mr. Stump did not
file his habeas petition until April 8, 2005, nearly eight years beyond the
-3-
expiration of the one-year limitation period set forth in 28 U.S.C. §
2244(d)(1)(A).
The magistrate judge then addressed the question we posed in our order of
remand. She observed that the respondents had produced documents showing
that, in 1996, corrections officials scheduled Mr. Stump’s initial parole hearing
date for March 2004. If Mr. Stump had been released in March 2004, the
promise allegedly made by his attorney at the time of the guilty plea would have
been fulfilled: Mr. Stump would have served approximately eight years in prison,
a period within his attorney’s seven to nine year estimate.
However, the magistrate judge continued, the respondents produced
additional documents that notified Mr. Stump in 1998 and 1999 “that his parole
eligibility had been changed to a later date–February 2007.” Aplt’s App. at
12-13.
[U]nder the circumstances of this case, [Mr. Stump] was
reasonably charged with the knowledge that[,] at least by
May 19, 1999, that he would not be considered for parole
much less released on parole within seven to nine years of
his 1996 conviction. Once [Mr. Stump] was notified in
May of 1999 that his initial parole hearing was set for
February of 2007, he surely knew he would not be released
on parole in 2005 as promised by trial counsel. [Mr.
Stump] offers no reasonable explanation for waiting
almost five years to begin raising his claim.
Therefore, . . . [Mr. Stump], acting with reasonable
diligence, either knew, or could have discovered through
the exercise of due diligence, the facts underlying his
federal habeas claim on or before May 19, 1999, not some
-4-
later date when [Mr. Stump] may have discovered a legal
argument concerning his ineffective assistance of counsel
claim.
Aplt’s App. at 14 (footnotes omitted).
The magistrate judge further concluded that neither statutory nor equitable
tolling of the limitations period was warranted. The district court again adopted
the report and recommendation and concluded that Mr. Stump’s petition was
time-barred.
II. DISCUSSION
In order to obtain a COA, Mr. Stump must make “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). He may make this
showing by demonstrating that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for
that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different
manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to
proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (internal
quotation marks omitted). “[A] claim can be debatable even though every jurist
of reason might agree, after the COA has been granted and the case has received
full consideration, that [the] petitioner will not prevail.” Id. at 338.
A. Limitations Period
Here, as the magistrate judge observed, Mr. Stump’s petition is governed
by the limitations period set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), which provides:
-5-
A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application
for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant
to the judgment of a State court. The limitation period
shall run from the latest of –
(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the
conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time
for seeking such review;
(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an
application created by State action in violation of the
Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the
applicant was prevented from filing by such State action;
(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was
initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has
been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made
retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or
(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or
claims presented could have been discovered through the
exercise of due diligence.
Mr. Stump contends that his habeas petition is timely under §
2244(d)(1)(D). However, like the magistrate judge, we are not persuaded that
it was only after the end of the seven-to-nine year period of incarceration that the
factual predicate of Mr. Stump’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim “could
have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.” Id.
As the magistrate judge reasoned, the documents offered by the respondents
established that corrections officials informed Mr. Stump no later than May 19,
1999, that he would not be considered for parole until February 2007 – “almost
two years longer than counsel’s seven to nine year time frame.” Aplt’s App. at
14. Mr. Stump has offered no colorable argument why his claim did not accrue
when he was notified of the February 2007 parole date. He does not contend that
-6-
he did not understand the documents, that they were ambiguous, or that he could
not have reasonably determined from them that he would be incarcerated for a
longer period of time than promised by his trial counsel. Thus, the factual
predicate of Mr. Stump’s claim was discoverable no later than May 19, 1999,
when he received the notice of the March 2007 parole date. Cf. Okla. Federated
Gold & Numismatics, Inc. v. Blodgett, 24 F.3d 136, 139-40 (10th Cir. 1994)
(noting that a pro se litigant could not convincingly maintain that he was unaware
of the need to comply with court orders and the consequences of his failure to do
so). Mr. Stump had one year from May 19, 1999, to file his federal habeas
petition. However, he did not file this case until April 8, 2005, well after the
limitations period expired.
B. Equitable Tolling
In his appellate brief, Mr. Stump’s counsel argues that equitable tolling of
the limitations period is warranted. He asserts that “[Mr. Stump] is entitled to
equitable tolling because even though he may have been given information of the
change in his parole date and even though he may have signed his adjustment
reviews, etc., he was still counting on the fact that what his trial attorney told him
was going to happen.” Aplt’s Br. at 14-15.
Section 2244’s one-year statute of limitations is subject to equitable tolling
only in rare and exceptional circumstances. Gibson v. Klinger, 232 F.3d 799, 808
(10th Cir. 2000). “Equitable tolling would be appropriate, for example, when a
-7-
prisoner is actually innocent, when an adversary’s conduct – or other
uncontrollable circumstances – prevents a prisoner from timely filing, or when a
prisoner actively pursues judicial remedies but files a defective pleading during
the statutory period.” Id. (internal citations omitted). “Simple [e]xcusable
neglect is not sufficient.” Id. Additionally, “a petitioner must diligently pursue
his federal habeas claims.” Id.
Here, Mr. Stump’s contention that he continued to rely on the assurances of
his counsel does not meet this high standard. We therefore conclude that he is not
entitled to equitable tolling of the limitations period.
III. CONCLUSION
We therefore DENY Mr. Stump’s application for a COA and DISMISS this
matter.
Entered for the Court,
Robert H. Henry
Chief Circuit Judge
-8-