Seadin v. Williams ( 2020 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 7, 2020
_________________________________
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
ERNEST SEADIN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v. No. 20-1026
(D.C. No. 1:19-CV-01863-LTB-GPG)
DEAN WILLIAMS, Director of the (D. Colo.)
Colorado Department of
Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
_________________________________
ORDER
_________________________________
Before LUCERO, BACHARACH, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Mr. Ernest Seadin, a state prisoner, filed a habeas petition in 2019,
arguing that his sentence had already expired. Roughly five years ago, Mr.
Seadin unsuccessfully made a similar habeas claim. Relying on the prior
ruling and the passage of time, the district court dismissed the new habeas
petition.
Mr. Seadin seeks a certificate of appealability in order to appeal. 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). And to proceed without prepayment of the filing
fee, he seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We deny the certificate of
appealability but grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
A certificate of appealability is available only if jurists could
reasonably debate the correctness of the district court’s procedural rulings.
Laurson v. Leyba, 507 F.3d 1230, 1232 (10th Cir. 2007). The procedural
rulings are not reasonably debatable because Mr. Seadin failed to challenge
one of the district court’s reasons for dismissal.
Because the district court dismissed the action based on two
independent procedural grounds (abuse of the writ and expiration of the
limitations period), Mr. Seadin could prevail on appeal only by
demonstrating the invalidity of both procedural grounds. See Lebahn v.
Nat’l Farmers Union Unif. Pension Plan, 828 F.3d 1180, 1188 (10th Cir.
2016) (“When a district court dismisses a claim on two or more
independent grounds, the appellant must challenge each of those
grounds.”).
But Mr. Seadin does not challenge the district court’s ruling that the
limitations period had expired. So even if we were to credit everything in
Mr. Seadin’s appeal brief, we would need to affirm. See id. (stating that we
must affirm when an appellant fails to challenge one of two independent
grounds for dismissal). Given Mr. Seadin’s failure to challenge the district
court’s reliance on the statute of limitations, we deny his request for a
certificate of appealability. Because we deny the request for a certificate of
appealability, we must also dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(A).
2
Though we deny a certificate of appealability, we grant leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. Mr. Seadin cannot prepay the filing fee, and we
have no reason to question his good faith even though his appellate
arguments are not reasonably debatable. See Moore v. Pemberton, 110 F.3d
22, 24 (7th Cir. 1997) (per curiam) (stating that the petitioner’s burden for
a certificate of appealability “is considerably higher” than the burden of
“good faith” for leave to proceed in forma pauperis). As a result, we grant
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See Watkins v. Leyba, 543 F.3d 624,
627 (10th Cir. 2008) (granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis
notwithstanding the denial of a certificate of appealability); Yang v.
Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 931 & n.10 (10th Cir. 2008) (same).
Entered for the Court
Robert E. Bacharach
Circuit Judge
3