Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_92-cv-02076/USCOURTS-azd-2_92-cv-02076-0/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

Donald Edward Beaty, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-92-2076-PHX-SRB

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER RE: EXPANDED

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

On remand from the Ninth Circuit, the Court has denied Petitioner habeas relief

following an evidentiary hearing regarding one claim, whether Petitioner’s confession was

involuntary in violation of the Fifth Amendment. (Dkts. 270, 283.) Following this Court’s

denial of relief, Petitioner filed several post-judgment motions. The Court denied

Petitioner’s motion for a new trial (dkt. 284), dismissed other motions for lack of jurisdiction

(dkts. 285, 299 and 300) and denied a motion to stay proceedings (dkt. 305.) Concurrent

with the Court’s Order resolving these motions, in the interest of conserving scarce Criminal

Justice Act funds that might be consumed drafting an application for a certificate of

appealability, the Court on its own initiative evaluated whether a certificate of appealability

(“COA”) should issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Turner v. Calderon, 281 F.3d 851, 864-65

(9th Cir. 2002). The Court granted a COA regarding Petitioner’s voluntariness claim and

declined to issue a certificate of appealability for any other issues, for all of the reasons stated

Case 2:92-cv-02076-SRB Document 327 Filed 01/25/06 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 -

in the Court’s previous orders, citing dkts. 68-70, 85, 89, 270, 282 and 283. (Dkt. 311.)

Following entry of the Court’s COA Order, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal. (Dkts. 312,

314.) Subsequently, Petitioner filed a motion to expand the certificate of appealability,

asking the Court to include all of the issues earlier resolved as dismissed for lack of

jurisdiction. (Dkt. 319.) 

Petitioner’s request for an expanded COA is summarily denied. The Court has

considered all of the claims at issue, granted a COA on the voluntariness claim and denied

it on all other claims, including all of the issues covered in its Order filed November 1, 2005.

Any further request for an expanded COA should be addressed to the Court of Appeals. See

Ninth Circuit Rule 22-1(e) (providing that a petitioner may address uncertified issues in an

opening appellate brief, and that such briefing is construed by the Court of Appeals as a

motion to expand the COA).

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for an expanded COA is

DENIED. (Dkt. 319.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court forward a courtesy copy of this

Order to the Clerk of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

DATED this 24th day of January, 2006.

Case 2:92-cv-02076-SRB Document 327 Filed 01/25/06 Page 2 of 2