FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS October 22, 2010
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
RUDOLPH A. JACKSON,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
WARDEN GREEN OF THE BUENA No. 10-1364
VISTA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, (D.C. No. 1:10-CV-788-ZLW)
and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF (D. Colo.)
THE STATE OF COLORADO,
Respondents-Appellees.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *
Before MURPHY, GORSUCH, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
Rudolph A. Jackson was convicted in Colorado for aggravated robbery,
theft, menacing, and three counts of being a habitual offender. He was sentenced
to a prison term of sixty-four years. On direct review, the Colorado Court of
Appeals affirmed his conviction in all respects, except that it remanded with
instructions to address Mr. Jackson’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim in
connection with his habitual offender conviction. The trial court, on remand,
*
This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of
the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its
persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
ultimately rejected that claim. The Colorado Court of Appeals later affirmed that
decision and the Colorado Supreme Court denied Mr. Jackson’s petition for a writ
of certiorari on October 4, 1999.
More than two years later, on May 21, 2002, Mr. Jackson filed a motion
for post-conviction relief, which the state trial court denied. He later filed
another post-conviction motion that was again denied. Finally, on March 8, 2004,
Mr. Jackson filed in federal district court his first petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Before any decision on the merits,
however, Mr. Jackson voluntarily dismissed his petition. More than six years
later, Mr. Jackson filed the present § 2254 petition. In a thorough ten-page order,
the district court dismissed the petition as time-barred, stating that Mr. Jackson
did not bring his motion within one year from the date on which his conviction
became final, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A).
Mr. Jackson now seeks from us a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to
appeal the district court’s dismissal of his § 2254 petition. We may issue a COA
only if the petitioner makes a “substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When, as here, the district court
dismisses a § 2254 petition on procedural grounds, we may issue a COA only if
“jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in
its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Mindful of
Mr. Jackson’s pro se status, in making this requisite assessment we review his
-2-
claims with liberality. Van Deelen v. Johnson, 497 F.3d 1151, 1153 n. 1 (10th
Cir. 2007). Even doing so, however, we conclude that the district court was
unquestionably correct in holding Mr. Jackson’s petition time-barred, and for
substantially the same reasons given by the district court, we deny Mr. Jackson’s
application for a COA, dismiss this appeal, and deny his motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Neil M. Gorsuch
Circuit Judge
-3-