Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_98-cv-01277/USCOURTS-azd-2_98-cv-01277-4/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

Eric John King, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-98-1277-PHX-RCB

DEATH PENALTY CASE

 ORDER RE: CERTIFICATE OF 

 APPEALABILITY

 

Before the Court is Petitioner’s motion (Dkt. 104) for a certificate of appealability

concerning the denial of his motion for relief pursuant to Rule 60(b).

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 or state the reasons why such a certificate should not issue.

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 petition 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)). 

The Court finds, for the reasons set forth in its order of July 1, 2009 (Dkt. 102), that

reasonable jurists could not debate its application of Rule 60(b) to Petitioner’s challenges to

Case 2:98-cv-01277-RCB Document 105 Filed 08/11/09 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

the Court’s dismissal of Claim 7 on procedural grounds and that the issues involved are not

adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for a certificate of appealability

(Dkt. 104) is denied.

DATED this 10th day of August, 2009.

Case 2:98-cv-01277-RCB Document 105 Filed 08/11/09 Page 2 of 2