United States vs. Davis, No. 06-1360 (10th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS April 17, 2007 TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court U N ITED STA TES O F A M ER ICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 06-1360 v. (D . of Colo.) W ILLIAM DEA N DAVIS, (D.C. Nos. 06-CV-1147-LTB and 03-CR-11-LTB) Defendant-Appellant. OR DER * Before M U RPH Y, SE YM OU R, and M cCO NNELL, Circuit Judges. W illiam D ean Davis, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) that would allow him to appeal from the district court s order denying his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). Because we conclude that M r. Davis has failed to make a substantial show ing of the denial of a constitutional right, we deny his request for a COA and dismiss the appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Background On April 11, 2003, M r. Davis pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) * This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. and (b)(1)(viii) and to possession of a firearm during comm ission of drug trafficking in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). His conviction became final on July 9, 2003. His brother and co-defendant, Don W ayne Davis, did not plead guilty, but instead challenged the admission of the evidence obtained in the search. In M arch 2006, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado found that the warrant authorizing law enforcement to search the Davis s home was invalid and excluded the evidence obtained in the search. As a result, the government dropped the charges against Don. On June 15, 2006, not quite three years after his conviction became final, M r. D avis filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 raising two claims. He contended that law enforcement violated his constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court dismissed his petition as untimely because it was not filed within the AEDPA one-year statute of limitations. The court also held that M r. Davis was not entitled to equitable tolling. Discussion A habeas petitioner may appeal the denial of his § 2255 motion only if the district court or this Court first issues a COA. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). A COA will issue only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make such a showing, a petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists could debate -2- whether . . . the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. Slack v. M cDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). W e find no room to debate here. AEDPA requires a federal prisoner to file for federal habeas relief within one year after his conviction becomes final or within one year after the facts supporting the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(4). Though the one-year statute of limitations may be subject to equitable tolling, such relief is only available when an inmate diligently pursues his claims and demonstrates that the failure to timely file was caused by extraordinary circumstances beyond his control. M arsh v. Soares, 223 F.3d 1217, 1220 (10th Cir. 2000). The facts supporting M r. Davis s claims of an unconstitutional search and ineffective assistance of counsel could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence at any time after his conviction became final. M r. Davis argues that ignorance of the filing deadline prevented him from filing his petition earlier. However, ignorance of the law , even for an incarcerated pro se petitioner, generally does not excuse prompt filing. Id. at 1220 (internal quotations omitted). He also argues that because the court mailed him the requisite forms to fill out his § 2255 petition, it effectively gave him permission to file such a petition regardless of AEDPA constraints. He cites no authority to support this -3- proposition. M erely providing a petitioner with court forms does not grant permission for late filing of a habeas petition. Reasonable jurists would agree that the AEDPA one-year filing deadline forecloses M r. Davis s habeas corpus petition. Conclusion Accordingly, we D EN Y M r. Davis s request for a COA and DISM ISS this appeal. Appellant s motion to proceed in form a pauperis is also DENIED. Entered for the Court, M ichael W . M cConnell Circuit Judge -4-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
