Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_97-cv-01554/USCOURTS-azd-2_97-cv-01554-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Roger Mark Scott, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Dora Schriro, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-97-1554-PHX-PGR

DEATH PENALTY CASE

 ORDER RE: CERTIFICATE OF 

 APPEALABILITY

 

Petitioner has filed a notice of appeal of the Court’s Order denying his motion for

relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6). (Dkt. 189.)

Rule 22(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that when an appeal

is taken by a petitioner, the district judge who rendered the judgment “shall” either issue a

certificate of appealability (“COA”) or state the reasons why such a certificate should not

issue. See Lynch v. Blodgett, 999 F.2d 401, 402 (9th Cir. 1993). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2253(c)(2), a COA may issue only when the petitioner “has made a substantial showing of

the denial of a constitutional right.” To satisfy this standard, a petitioner “must demonstrate

that the issues are debatable among jurists of reason; that a court could resolve the issues [in

a different manner]; or that the questions are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed

further.” Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 & n.4 (1983); see Slack v. McDaniel, 529

U.S. 473, 484 (2000). A COA is proper, for example, where an issue is the subject of

conflicting authority within a circuit or between circuits. See Lambright v. Stewart, 220 F.3d

1022, 1026 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Case 2:97-cv-01554-PGR Document 190 Filed 05/30/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

For the reasons set forth in its Order denying Petitioner’s motion for relief pursuant

to Rule 60(b)(6) (Dkt. 188) – principally, because there is no authority for Petitioner’s

position that a statutory right to effective assistance of habeas counsel exists which would

support a claim for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) – the Court finds

that reasonable jurists could not debate its denial of Petitioner’s motion for relief and that the

issues presented in the motion are not adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.

See, e.g., Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005); Post v. Bradshaw, 422 F.3d 419 (6th Cir.

2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1621 (2006).

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying a Certificate of Appealability.

DATED this 29th day of May, 2007.

Case 2:97-cv-01554-PGR Document 190 Filed 05/30/07 Page 2 of 2