Background
Cody Reid Lunsford, an Oklahoma state prisoner, was convicted of child abuse by injury for causing severe head trauma to a four-month-old infant. After state post-conviction relief was denied, he filed a federal habeas corpus petition under Section twenty-two hundred and fifty-four. The district court dismissed the petition as time-barred under the one-year statute of limitations, finding that the new medical evidence did not satisfy the actual innocence exception.
The court’s reasoning
To grant a certificate of appealability, the court must find that jurists of reason would debate whether the petition states a valid claim of a constitutional right or whether the procedural ruling was correct. The petitioner argued that new medical testimony showed the infant’s injuries were caused by infection rather than abuse. The court found this evidence insufficient because it did not make it more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him. The court noted that trial evidence, including testimony from a pediatric neurosurgeon, contradicted the new reports and supported the finding of abuse.
We further conclude that reasonable jurists could not debate the district court’s rejection of Mr. Lunsford’s actual innocence claim and its denial of habeas relief as time-barred.
Lunsford v. Green, No. 26-6037 (10th Cir. June 3, 2026)
What it means going forward
The denial of the certificate of appealability prevents the petitioner from appealing the district court’s dismissal to the Tenth Circuit, leaving the time-barred dismissal in place.