Case ID: f-appx_408/html/0277-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Russell FORD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Willie THOMAS, Attorney General of the State of Alabama, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 10-12677
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Jan. 13, 2011.
    Raymond J. Hawthorne, Law Office of Raymond J. Hawthorne, Montgomery, AL, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Yvonne A.H. Saxon, Troy King, Alabama Attorney General, Montgomery, AL, for Respondents-Appellees.
    Before TJOFLAT, BLACK and CARNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Russell Ford, a Florida state prisoner proceeding through counsel, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition as time-barred. Ford filed a notice of appeal, and the district court granted him a certificate of appealability (COA) as to whether he had “made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right with respect to his claims related to newly discovered evidence and alleged destruction of evidence.” Ford contends Alabama’s post-conviction relief procedures are “fundamentally inadequate to vindicate [his] substantive rights” because the district attorney destroyed evidence, in bad faith and in violation of the Due Process Clause, which could have substantiated his claim of actual innocence.

A federal habeas petitioner must obtain a COA from the district court to appeal the denial of his § 2254 habeas petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). However, “[w]hen a district court dismisses a petition as time-barred, it is inappropriate to grant a COA on the [underlying] constitutional claim.... ” Ross v. Moore, 246 F.3d 1299, 1300 (11th Cir.2001).

In light of the district court’s untimeliness ruling, it was inappropriate to grant a COA on the issue of whether Ford had “made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right with respect to his claims related to newly discovered evidence and alleged destruction of evidence.” Accordingly, we vacate the order granting a COA and remand to the district court for the limited purpose of considering whether a COA should be granted on the question of whether Ford’s § 2254 petition is time-barred.

VACATED AND REMANDED. 
      
      . In Ross we vacated the order granting a COA and remanded to the district court "for the limited purpose of considering whether a COA should be granted on the question of whether appellant's habeas petition is time-barred.” Id.