Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_92-cv-02076/USCOURTS-azd-2_92-cv-02076-4/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

Donald Edward Beaty, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-92-2076-PHX-SRB

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

In this terminated habeas action the Court has denied relief, the Ninth Circuit has

affirmed, the Supreme Court has denied certiorari, and the mandate has issued. (See Dkts.

333, 336); Beaty v. Ryan, 130 S. Ct. 364 (2009). Following issuance of the mandate,

Petitioner moved the Court to issue an Order that would assist his factual development of a

future state clemency application he plans to file. (Doc. 343.) Noting lack of jurisdiction,

the Court denied Petitioner’s motion, and denied reconsideration. (See Doc. 346, 349.)

Petitioner has noticed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit regarding the Court’s Orders. (Doc.

350.) The Court has evaluated these Orders for suitability for issuance of a certificate of

appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1); Rule 11(a), 28 U.S.C. foll.

§ 2254. 

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

cannot take an appeal unless a certificate of appealability has been issued by an appropriate

judicial officer. Rule 11(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254, provides that the district judge must

either issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the

Case 2:92-cv-02076-SRB Document 351 Filed 08/31/10 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 -

applicant. If a certificate is issued, the court must state the specific issue or issues that satisfy

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), a certificate of appealability

may issue only when the petitioner “has made a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” This showing can be established by demonstrating that “reasonable

jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the matter should have been

resolved in a different manner” or that the issues were “adequate to deserve encouragement

to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (citing Barefoot v. Estelle,

463 U.S. 880, 893 & n.4 (1983)). 

In this case, where the Court has determined that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over

a motion, however, it also lacks jurisdiction to grant a certificate of appealability. Cf.

Williams v. Chatman, 510 F.3d 1290, 1294-95 (11th Cir. 2007) (stating that if the district

court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over a FED.R.CIV.P. 60(b) motion, it also lacked

jurisdiction to grant a certificate of appealability). 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying issuance of a certificate of appealability (Doc.

350); this Court is without jurisdiction in the matter. 

DATED this 31st day of August, 2010.

Case 2:92-cv-02076-SRB Document 351 Filed 08/31/10 Page 2 of 2