Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-10834/USCOURTS-ca5-15-10834-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-10834

TOBY JOSHUA JOHNSTON,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL 

JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:07-CV-397

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Toby Joshua Johnston, Texas prisoner # 1377558, is serving a 35-year 

term of imprisonment for possession of child pornography, aggravated sexual 

assault of a child under fourteen years of age, and sexual performance by a 

child. In 2007, Johnston filed an unsuccessful 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition 

challenging his convictions. In July 2015, he filed a motion for relief from 

judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) seeking relief from 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 7, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-10834 Document: 00513710424 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/07/2016
No. 15-10834

2

the denial of his § 2254 petition. The district court denied the motion on the 

ground that it was not filed within a reasonable time as required by Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1).

Johnston now seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the 

district court’s denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion. He 

also has filed motions for leave to file a corrected brief and a supplemental 

brief, as well as a motion to take judicial notice of adjudicative facts.

Before he can appeal the denial of his motion under Rule 60(b) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Johnston must obtain a COA. See Ochoa 

Canales v. Quarterman, 507 F.3d 884, 888 (5th Cir. 2007). The district court 

did not determine whether Johnston was entitled to a COA. Because the 

district court has not issued a COA ruling, we assume without deciding that 

we lack jurisdiction over the appeal. See Rule 11(a), RULES GOVERNING § 2254

PROCEEDINGS; Cardenas v. Thaler, 651 F.3d 442, 444 & nn.1-2 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Nevertheless, we decline to remand this case to the district court for a COA 

ruling because the appeal is frivolous, and a remand would be futile. See 

United States v. Alvarez, 210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir. 2000).

In the alternative, even if we have jurisdiction over the appeal absent a 

COA ruling in the district court, we would deny a COA. To obtain a COA, 

Johnston must establish that reasonable jurists would debate that the district 

court abused its discretion in denying the Rule 60(b) motion. Hernandez v. 

Thaler, 630 F.3d 420, 427-28 (5th Cir. 2011); see Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 

473, 484 (2000). He has failed to make the required showing.

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction, and 

Johnston’s motions for a COA, for leave to file a corrected brief, for leave to file 

a supplemental brief, and to take judicial notice of adjudicative facts are 

DENIED AS MOOT.

 Case: 15-10834 Document: 00513710424 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/07/2016