Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01271/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01271-7/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KERRY DANA HASTINGS,

Petitioner,

v.

CONNIE GIPSON,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01271-LJO-EPG-HC

ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY FOR 

DENIAL OF PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

(ECF No. 34)

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se whose petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 was dismissed on August 25, 2015. (ECF No. 26). On August 8, 

2016, the Court denied Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment. (ECF No. 30). 

Petitioner filed a notice of appeal, and on September 9, 2016, the Ninth Circuit remanded the 

case to this Court for the limited purpose of granting or denying a certificate of appealability for 

the denial of Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment. (ECF No. 34).

In his petition, Petitioner claimed: (1) the prosecution’s destruction of the photo lineup

violated his due process rights; (2) the prosecution’s improper use of recorded and transcribed 

jail house informant audio violated his rights; and (3) DNA testing did not establish that 

Petitioner was involved in the crimes. On January 16, 2015, Respondent filed a motion to 

dismiss because Petitioner had not exhausted his second and third claims. (ECF No. 15). 

Petitioner did not file a response to Respondent’s motion to dismiss. On March 3, 2015, the 

Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendation that recommended that Respondent’s 

Case 1:14-cv-01271-LJO-EPG Document 35 Filed 09/16/16 Page 1 of 3
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

motion to dismiss be granted and the petition be dismissed without prejudice. (ECF No. 17). In 

the findings and recommendation, Petitioner was given the option of moving to withdraw the 

unexhausted claims within thirty days. On March 9, 2015, Petitioner filed a document entitled 

“Proof of Exhaustion” that the Court construed as a motion to withdraw claim three. (ECF No. 

18). On April 27, 2015, the Court vacated the March 3, 2015 findings and recommendation, 

granted Petitioner’s motion to withdraw claim 3, and ordered Petitioner to show cause why the 

petition should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust. (ECF No. 21). 

On June 8, 2015, Petitioner filed a motion to stay and hold the petition in abeyance while 

he exhausts the second and third claims. (ECF No. 22). On July 7, 2015, the Magistrate Judge 

issued findings and recommendation that recommended that the petition be dismissed without 

prejudice for being a mixed petition containing unexhausted claims, that Petitioner’s motion for a 

stay pursuant to Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2002), be denied, and that Petitioner’s 

motion for a stay pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), be denied. (ECF No. 24). 

Petitioner was also given the option of moving to withdraw the unexhausted second claim of the 

petition within thirty days. Petitioner did not file any objections to the July 7, 2015 findings and 

recommendation and did not move to withdraw the second claim of the petition. Therefore, on 

August 25, 2015, the Court adopted the findings and recommendation and dismissed the petition 

without prejudice. (ECF No. 26).

On February 29, 2016, Petitioner filed a Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the 

Court’s order dismissing the case, stating that he lacks legal training and requesting the Court’s 

guidance on exhaustion (ECF No. 28). On August 8, 2016, the Court denied the motion. (ECF 

No. 30).

A state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a 

district court’s denial of relief, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El 

v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. § 2253. In United States v. Winkles, the 

Ninth Circuit held that a certificate of appealability “is required to appeal the denial of a Rule 

60(b) motion for relief from judgment arising out of the denial of a section 2255 motion.” 795 

F.3d 1134, 1142 (9th Cir. 2015). If a court denies a Rule 60(b) motion in a § 2255 proceeding, a 

Case 1:14-cv-01271-LJO-EPG Document 35 Filed 09/16/16 Page 2 of 3
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

3

certificate of appealability should only issue if “(1) jurists of reason would find it debatable 

whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the Rule 60(b) motion and (2) jurists of 

reason would find it debatable whether the underlying section 2255 motion states a valid claim 

of the denial of a constitutional right.” Winkles, 795 F.3d at 1143. “Given that section 2255 ‘was 

intended to mirror § 2254 in operative effect,’ and that the language used in sections 

2253(c)(1)(A) and (c)(1)(B) is functionally identical,” id. at 1141 (citations omitted), the Court 

will apply the standard set forth in Winkles to determine whether a certificate of appealability 

should issue regarding Petitioner’s appeal of the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion for relief from 

judgment arising out of the dismissal of his § 2254 petition.

Here, Petitioner has not shown that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the

Court abused its discretion in denying his Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration. In the motion, 

Petitioner stated that he lacks legal training and requested the Court’s guidance on exhaustion.

The Court cannot provide legal advice to litigants, even when they are pro se litigants who lack 

legal training. Additionally, for a party to be entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(6), he must show 

“‘extraordinary circumstances’ justifying the reopening of a final judgment,” and “[s]uch 

circumstances will rarely occur in the habeas context.” Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 535 

(2005) (citations omitted). As both prongs of the standard must be satisfied and Petitioner has 

failed to meet one of them, Petitioner is not entitled to a certificate of appealability under 

Winkles.

Accordingly, the Court hereby DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. The

Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to serve a copy of this order on the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 15, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01271-LJO-EPG Document 35 Filed 09/16/16 Page 3 of 3