Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_97-cv-02316/USCOURTS-cand-3_97-cv-02316-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD WASHINGTON, B69981,

Petitioner,

 vs.

DEBBIE ASUNCION, Acting Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 97-2316 CRB (PR)

ORDER DENYING

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

(Dkt. #36)

On April 17, 2001, the court denied on the merits petitioner’s application

for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a state superior

court conviction on two grounds – petitioner’s right to a fair trial was violated

when the jury saw him in shackles and the prosecution improperly used his postMiranda silence as evidence of his sanity. On May 3, 2001, the court denied a

certificate of appealability (COA) under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and, on June 18, 2001,

the Ninth Circuit also denied a COA. 

On February 8, 2016, nearly fifteen years later, petitioner filed a motion

for reconsideration or to vacate judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

60(b) claiming that the court had wrongly rejected his two previously-raised

claims for relief. On February 16, 2016, the court denied the motion. The court

explained that a Rule 60(b) motion that attacks a federal habeas court’s previous

resolution of a claim or claims on the merits must be treated as a successive

petition and subjected to the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), which in part

Case 3:97-cv-02316-CRB Document 37 Filed 03/04/16 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

preclude the filing a successive petition in this court unless petitioner first obtains

from the Ninth Circuit an order authorizing this court to consider the petition, and

petitioner has not obtained such an order from the Ninth Circuit.

Rather than requesting from the Ninth Circuit an order authorizing the

filing of a successive petition in this court, petitioner filed a notice of appeal and

a request for a COA from the court’s denial of his Rule 60(b) motion. 

Petitioner’s request for a COA (dkt. #36) is DENIED. Petitioner has not

demonstrated 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 v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

The clerk shall forward to the Ninth Circuit the case file with this order. 

See United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997). 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: Mar 4, 2016 

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\CRB\HC.97\Washington, D.97-2316.deny_coa.wpd

Case 3:97-cv-02316-CRB Document 37 Filed 03/04/16 Page 2 of 2