Background
Roy Harjo, an Oklahoma state prisoner, pleaded guilty in 2018 to assault charges and was sentenced to life imprisonment. After state post-conviction relief attempts failed, including a claim based on the McGirt decision, Harjo filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 in February 2025. The district court dismissed the petition as time-barred, finding it was filed more than six months after the one-year statute of limitations expired. The district court also denied Harjo a certificate of appealability.
The court’s reasoning
The court applied the standard from Slack v. McDaniel, requiring a showing that reasonable jurists would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim or whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling. The court focused solely on the procedural ruling regarding the statute of limitations under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. The court found that Harjo’s argument for equitable tolling based on his lack of knowledge that the limitations period resumed after the state court denied his application was not an extraordinary circumstance. Furthermore, the court calculated that even if equitable tolling were applied for the period the Supreme Court considered his certiorari petition, the petition would still be 17 days late.
we hold that reasonable jurists would not debate the district court’s procedural determination that Harjo’s habeas petition was time barred.
Harjo v. Drummond, 25-6108 (10th Cir. July 7, 2026)
What it means going forward
The denial of the certificate of appealability prevents Harjo from proceeding with his federal habeas claim on the merits, effectively ending his ability to challenge his conviction in federal court on the grounds raised.