FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS June 15, 2011
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court
RODNEY SAMPSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
No. 11-6013
v. (D.C. No. 5:10-CV-00736-W)
(W. D. Oklahoma)
MARVIN VAUGHN,
Respondent - Appellee.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE
OF APPEALABILITY
Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, ANDERSON and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner, Rodney Sampson, an Oklahoma state prisoner proceeding pro
se, seeks a certificate of appealability (“COA”) so he can appeal the district
court’s dismissal of the application for a writ of habeas corpus he filed pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Montez v. McKinna, 208 F.3d 862, 867 (10th Cir. 2000)
(holding a state prisoner must obtain a COA to appeal the denial of a § 2241
habeas petition); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). We grant Sampson’s request to
proceed in forma pauperis in this matter.
In 1996, Sampson was convicted in Oklahoma state court of trafficking in
illegal drugs and possession of a controlled dangerous substance. He was
sentenced to a term of incarceration but paroled on February 8, 2002. The
certificate of parole set Sampson’s parole discharge date as January 26, 2008.
Supervision of Sampson’s parole was transferred to the state of California
pursuant to an interstate compact agreement. On May 2, 2006, Sampson was
convicted in California state court of forgery and making a false financial
statement. After serving his California sentence, Sampson was extradited to
Oklahoma and given a parole revocation hearing. The governor of Oklahoma
revoked Sampson’s parole on September 2, 2008.
Sampson followed several avenues in an attempt to challenge the
revocation of his parole, filing numerous state and federal habeas petitions. For
purposes of the matter currently before this court, it is relevant that he filed an
application for post-conviction relief on April 16, 2009. See Okla. Stat. tit. 22,
§ 1080 (providing that a defendant alleging his parole has been “unlawfully
revoked” may challenge the revocation in a state post-conviction proceeding).
The application was denied by the state district court and Sampson did not file a
timely appeal from that ruling.
Sampson filed the instant § 2241 application on July 13, 2010. In the
application he asserted (1) the revocation of his parole was unlawful because his
parole had been discharged before he was arrested for the California crimes and
(2) his transfer from California to Oklahoma violated his right to due process.
Respondent moved to dismiss Sampson’s habeas application as untimely. In a
well-reasoned Report and Recommendation (R&R), a federal magistrate judge
-2-
concluded the time for filing Sampson’s § 2241 application was governed by 28
U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A) and Sampson had one year from the date the revocation of
his parole became final to file his § 2241 application. Because Oklahoma does
not have a procedure for direct review of the governor’s decision to revoke
parole, the Report and Recommendation used the date of revocation as the date it
became final.
Although the Report and Recommendation statutorily tolled the one-year
limitations period during the time Sampson’s properly filed state post-conviction
application was pending in state court, the magistrate concluded the § 2241
application was nevertheless untimely. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) (providing the
one-year limitations period is tolled while “a properly filed application for State
post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment
or claim is pending”). The Report and Recommendation next analyzed whether
Sampson was entitled to equitable tolling. See Holland v. Florida, 130 S. Ct.
2549, 2560 (2010) (holding § 2244(d)’s one-year statute of limitations is subject
to equitable tolling). Sampson asserted he was entitled to equitable tolling
because the state of California discharged his parole on March 16, 2005, and,
thus, he was actually innocent of violating his parole. See Laurson v. Leyba, 507
F.3d 1230, 1232 (10th Cir. 2007) (“A claim of actual innocence may toll the
AEDPA statute of limitations.”). The magistrate judge noted that only the state of
Oklahoma had the authority to discharge Sampson’s parole and, accordingly,
-3-
rejected Sampson’s argument that he was actually innocent. The district court
considered Sampson’s objections to the Report and Recommendation but granted
Respondent’s motion and dismissed Sampson’s habeas petition as untimely.
Sampson seeks a COA to appeal that dismissal.
To be entitled to a COA, Sampson must show “that jurists of reason would
find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.”
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 474, 484-85 (2000) (holding that when a district
court dismisses a habeas petition on procedural grounds, a petitioner is entitled to
a COA only if he shows both that reasonable jurists would find it debatable
whether he had stated a valid constitutional claim and debatable whether the
district court’s procedural ruling was correct). This court reviews the district
court’s decision on equitable tolling for abuse of discretion. Burger v. Scott, 317
F.3d 1133, 1138 (10th Cir. 2003).
This court has reviewed Sampson’s appellate brief and application for
COA, the Report and Recommendation, the district court’s order, and the entire
record on appeal pursuant to the framework set out by the Supreme Court in
Miller-El and concludes Sampson is not entitled to a COA. Although Sampson
asserts the one-year limitations period set out in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) does not
apply in this situation because he lacked an avenue to seek direct judicial review
of the decision to revoke his parole, this court has held that the limitations period
applies to § 2241 challenges to administrative decisions. Dulworth v. Evans, 442
-4-
F.3d 1265, 1268 (10th Cir. 2006). Further, our record review confirms Sampson
failed to demonstrate an entitlement to equitable tolling. Thus, the district court
did not abuse its discretion when it refused to equitably toll the one-year
limitations period.
The district court’s resolution of Sampson’s § 2241 habeas application is
not reasonably subject to debate and his claims are not adequate to deserve further
proceedings. Accordingly, Sampson has not “made a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right” and is not entitled to a COA. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2). This court denies Sampson’s request for a COA and dismisses this
appeal.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-5-