Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_95-cv-02460/USCOURTS-azd-2_95-cv-02460-2/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

Theodore Washington, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Dora Schriro, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-95-2460-PHX-JAT

DEATH PENALTY CASE

 ORDER RE: CERTIFICATE OF 

 APPEALABILITY

 

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

vacate judgment. (Dkt. 147.)

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 2:95-cv-02460-JAT Document 148 Filed 03/08/07 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 the motion to vacate (Dkt. 146) –

principally, because there is no authority supporting Petitioner’s attempt to use Rule 60(b)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to circumvent Rule 4(a) of the Federal Rules of

Appeal – the Court finds that reasonable jurists could not debate its denial of Petitioner’s

motion to vacate judgment and that the issues presented in the motion are not adequate to

deserve encouragement to proceed further. See Jackson v. Crosby, 437 F.3d 1290, 1295-96

(11th Cir. 2006) (petitioner not entitled to COA because “it would certainly be in error for

the district court to grant the relief requested” – i.e., to use a 60(b) motion “to restart the

filing period for a notice of appeal”).

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying a Certificate of Appealability.

DATED this 7th day of March, 2007.

Case 2:95-cv-02460-JAT Document 148 Filed 03/08/07 Page 2 of 2