Francis v. Standifird , 422 F. App'x 729 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                                        FILED
    United States Court of Appeals
    Tenth Circuit
    April 27, 2011
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    Elisabeth A. Shumaker
    Clerk of Court
    TENTH CIRCUIT
    CHRISTOPHER W. FRANCIS,
    Petitioner-Appellant,
    v.
    No. 11-6012
    (D.C. No. 5:10-CV-00722-W)
    JANE STANDIFIRD,
    (D. Wyo.)
    Respondent-Appellee.
    ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *
    Before LUCERO, EBEL, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.
    Christopher Francis pleaded guilty to child neglect in 2005 and is currently
    serving his sentence in an Oklahoma state penitentiary. In 2010, Mr. Francis filed
    a petition for relief under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
    . The district court dismissed Mr.
    Francis’s petition after determining it was untimely, see 
    28 U.S.C. § 2244
    (d)(1),
    and that none of the potential grounds for statutory or equitable tolling of the
    limitations period could save the petition. Seeking to appeal that dismissal, Mr.
    Francis asked the district court for a certificate of appealability (“COA”), which
    *
    This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of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.
    the court denied. Now before this court, Mr. Francis renews his request for a
    COA.
    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). And where, 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). We conclude, however, that no reasonable jurist would debate the district
    court’s holding that Mr. Francis’s petition is time-barred, and for substantially the
    same reasons given by the district court. Accordingly, we deny Mr. Francis’s
    application for a COA and dismiss this appeal. We also deny his motion for leave
    to proceed in forma pauperis and his “Motion to Consider Designation of
    Record.”
    ENTERED FOR THE COURT
    Neil M. Gorsuch
    Circuit Judge
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-6012

Citation Numbers: 422 F. App'x 729

Judges: Ebel, Gorsuch, Lucero

Filed Date: 4/27/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023