Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Smith v. Ray, 10th Cir. (2006)
Smith v. Ray, 10th Cir. (2006)
D EA N D RE FR AN K LIN SM ITH,
Petitioner - A ppellant,
v.
No. 06-5047
N. D. Oklahoma
C HA RLES R AY ,
Respondent - Appellee.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is
not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,
and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and
judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and
conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, but he must also show
that jurists of reason would find it debatable . . . whether the district court was
correct in its procedural ruling. Id. W here a plain procedural bar is present and
the district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of a case, a reasonable jurist
could not conclude either that the district court erred in dismissing the petition or
that the petitioner should be allowed to proceed further. Id.
On appeal M r. Smith does not challenge the district courts determination
that he had failed to file his 2254 application within AEDPA s one-year
limitations period. He does, however, challenge the district courts ruling on
three other grounds.
First, M r. Smith argues that he was improperly denied the six hours of
weekly access to legal materials to w hich he claims to be entitled under Lewis v.
Casey, 518 U .S. 343 (1996). But he did not raise this claim in district court, so
we will not consider it. See Simmat v. U. S. Bureau of Prisons, 413 F.3d 1225,
1240 (10th Cir. 2005) (we will not address issues raised for the first time on
appeal).
Second, M r. Smith argues that inadequacies in the state postconviction
proceedings resulted in a denial of due process. Again, however, he did not raise
this claim in district court, so we will not consider it. See id. In any event, he
fails to explain how these inadequacies caused his federal application under
2254 to be untimely.
-3-
8, 2004, rather than until only October 8, 2004 his 2254 application would
still be untimely. The district court calculated that AEDPA s limitations period
expired on January 29, 2005. W ith the addition of 31 days (O ctober 8 to
November 8), the AEDPA limitations period would have expired on M arch 1,
2005. M r. Smiths 2254 application was received for filing by the district court
on M arch 18, 2005. The earliest date one could attribute to the application is the
date entered for the Declaration Under Penalty of Perjury at the end of the
application form, which is M arch 4, 2005. Thus, the application was at least three
days late even if M r. Smiths state postconviction appeal w ere considered timely.
No reasonable jurist could dispute the district courts ruling that M r. Smith is not
entitled to relief on the ground of equitable tolling.
W e DENY a COA and DISM ISS the appeal.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Harris L Hartz
Circuit Judge
-5-