Case Explained: Harjo v. Drummond

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-07

Docket: 5:25-CV-00266-R)

The Tenth Circuit denied Roy Harjo’s request for a certificate of appealability (COA) and dismissed his appeal challenging the district court’s dismissal of his federal habeas corpus petition as time-barred. The court held that reasonable jurists would not debate the district court’s procedural ruling that Harjo’s petition was untimely under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). The court applied the standard from *Slack v. McDaniel*, which requires a petitioner to show that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right or whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling. Because the district court dismissed the petition on procedural grounds without reaching the underlying merits, the COA analysis focused solely on the timeliness determination. The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), noting that the one-year statute of limitations expired on August 23, 2024. Harjo argued for equitable tolling based on his lack of knowledge regarding when the limitations period resumed running after state post-conviction proceedings concluded. The court rejected this argument, citing *Lawrence v. Florida* to confirm that AEDPA’s statute of limitations is not tolled during the pendency of a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. Furthermore, the court found that ignorance of the law does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance warranting equitable tolling under *Holland v. Florida*. Even assuming Harjo was entitled to the full period he claimed (171 days), his petition filed on February 27, 2025, remained 188 days late. As a practical consequence, the COA is denied, and the appeal is dismissed, leaving the district court’s dismissal of the habeas petition as time-barred in effect. Additionally, the court denied Harjo’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis because he failed to raise a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts supporting his appeal.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.