Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00122/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00122-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCELLAS HOFFMAN,

Petitioner,

v.

ANDRE MATEVOUSIAN,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00122-EPG-HC

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY FOR DENIAL OF 

SECOND MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

(ECF No. 20)

Petitioner Marcellas Hoffman is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for 

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Per the Ninth Circuit‟s direction (ECF No. 

29), the Court determines whether it will issue a certificate of appealability for the Court‟s denial 

(ECF No. 20) of Petitioner‟s second motion for reconsideration of the denial of his habeas 

petition (ECF No. 19). For the reasons below, the Court denies a certificate of appealability.

I. Procedural History

In his petition, Petitioner claimed that his sentence is contrary to Alleyne v. United 

States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013), and that his attorney did not tell him about a plea offer, in 

violation of Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012). (ECF No. 1). On February 11, 2015, the 

Court dismissed the petition.

1

(ECF No. 7). The Court found that Petitioner did not establish a 

claim of actual innocence and thus, failed to demonstrate that his petition qualified under the 

 

1 This order and all others prior to December 11, 2015, were issued by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin.

Case 1:15-cv-00122-EPG Document 30 Filed 01/13/16 Page 1 of 4
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

savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. As the petition was a disguised section 2255 motion, the 

Court did not have jurisdiction. The Court declined to issue a certificate of appealability for the 

dismissal of the petition, and Petitioner did not file an appeal of the Court‟s dismissal.

On May 18, 2015, Petitioner filed his first motion for reconsideration of the Court‟s order 

dismissing the petition. (ECF No. 17). Petitioner argued that: he is actually and factually 

innocent, he is entitled to relief pursuant to Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013), 

his counsel was ineffective for not contesting an illegal search, and he would have accepted a 25-

year plea deal if he had known of the deal. On June 17, 2015, the Court denied Petitioner‟s 

motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 18). The Court reviewed the motion pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The Court again found that Petitioner did not establish a claim of 

actual innocence and thus, failed to demonstrate that his petition qualified under the savings 

clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Court noted that if Petitioner wished to raise claims concerning 

Descamps, which were not included in the initial petition with this Court, he must do so in a new 

petition. (ECF No. 18 at 4). Petitioner did not file an appeal of the Court‟s order denying his first 

motion for reconsideration. 

II. Petitioner’s Second Motion for Reconsideration

On July 13, 2015, Petitioner filed a second motion for reconsideration, which is the 

motion presently at issue on remand. (ECF No. 19). Petitioner argued that the recently decided 

Supreme Court case of Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), stands for the 

proposition that challenges to statutory law are always retroactive and adds support to Descamps. 

On July 30, 2015, the Court denied Petitioner‟s second motion for reconsideration, finding that it 

set forth arguments under Johnson to supplement and support Petitioner‟s Descamps claims that 

should be raised in a new petition. (ECF No. 20).

On December 17, 2015, the Court reopened the time for Petitioner to file an appeal of the 

Court‟s order denying his second motion for reconsideration because Petitioner was never served 

with said order. (ECF No. 25). Petitioner filed a notice of appeal and the appeal was processed to 

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (ECF Nos. 26, 27). 

\\\

Case 1:15-cv-00122-EPG Document 30 Filed 01/13/16 Page 2 of 4
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

3

III. Whether to Issue Certificate of Appealability 

On January 8, 2016, citing to United States v. Winkles, 795 F.3d 1134, 1142 (9th Cir. 

2015), the Ninth Circuit remanded the case to this Court for the limited purpose of granting or 

denying a certificate of appealability for the denial of Petitioner‟s second Rule 60(b) motion for 

relief from judgment. (ECF No. 29).

Winkles answered an open question in this circuit and held that a certificate of 

appealability “is required to appeal the denial of a [legitimate] Rule 60(b) motion for relief from 

judgment arising out of the denial of a section 2255 motion.” Winkles, 795 F.3d at 1142. The 

Ninth Circuit noted that courts of appeals that have articulated standards for issuance of a 

certificate of appealability in this context relied on Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000).

Winkles, 795 F.3d at 1143. In Slack, the Supreme Court held that if a court denies habeas relief 

on procedural grounds without reaching the underlying constitutional claims, the court should 

issue a certificate of appealability when a petitioner shows “that jurists of reason would find it 

debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that 

jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural 

ruling.” Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. Relying on Slack, the Ninth Circuit similarly held in Winkles

that if a court denies a Rule 60(b) motion in a section 2255 proceeding, a certificate of 

appealability should only issue if “(1) jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the 

district court abused its discretion in denying the Rule 60(b) motion and (2) jurists of reason 

would find it debatable whether the underlying section 2255 motion states a valid claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right.” Winkles, 795 F.3d at 1143. The Winkles standard applies to 

appeals of the denial of a “legitimate” Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment arising out of 

the denial of a section 2255 motion. Id. at 1139, 1141 (discussing Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 

524 (2005), which held that a “legitimate” Rule 60(b) motion attacks some defect in the integrity 

of the federal habeas proceedings while a Rule 60(b) motion asserting a federal basis for relief 

from a judgment of conviction is treated as a second or successive habeas petition).

Here, Petitioner has not shown that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the

Court abused its discretion in denying his second Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration. See

Case 1:15-cv-00122-EPG Document 30 Filed 01/13/16 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Towery v. Ryan, 673 F.3d 933, 940 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Gonzalez, 545 U.S. at 535) 

(“[R]elief under Rule 60(b)(6) requires the moving party to make a showing of „extraordinary 

circumstances.‟ „Such circumstances will rarely occur in the habeas context[.]‟”). As both prongs 

of the standard must be satisfied and Petitioner has failed to meet one of them, Petitioner is not 

entitled to a certificate of appealability under Winkles.

To the extent that Petitioner‟s second motion for reconsideration is not a “legitimate” 

Rule 60(b) motion, see Gonzalez, 545 U.S. at 531-32, because it raised a new claim rather than 

challenging the integrity of the habeas proceedings, Petitioner still does not satisfy the standard 

set forth in Slack. Petitioner has not shown that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether 

the Court was correct in its procedural ruling that if Petitioner wishes to raise new claims 

concerning Johnson and Descamps, he must do so in a new petition. As both prongs of the 

standard must be satisfied and Petitioner has failed to meet one of them, Petitioner is not entitled 

to a certificate of appealability under Slack.

IV. Conclusion

Accordingly, the Court hereby DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. 

The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to serve a copy of this order on the Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00122-EPG Document 30 Filed 01/13/16 Page 4 of 4