Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-20620/USCOURTS-ca5-14-20620-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Chad Fenley Davis
Appellant
William Stephens, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-20620

CHAD FENLEY DAVIS,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

WILLIAM STEPHENS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL 

JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:12-CV-2919

Before KING, JOLLY and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Chad Fenley Davis, Texas prisoner # 1336883, is serving a life sentence 

for capital murder. He has moved for a certificate of appealability (COA) from 

the denial of a motion he filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)

concerning his prior 28 U.S.C. § 2254 proceeding. A COA is unnecessary

because Davis merely asked the district court to reopen the time for filing an 

* 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

May 29, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-20620 Document: 00513059626 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/29/2015
No. 14-20620

appeal from the denial of the § 2254 petition. See Dunn v. Cockrell, 302 F.3d

491, 492 & n.1 (5th Cir. 2002).

Davis’s case is therefore before us on his motion to appeal IFP, and our 

inquiry “is limited to whether the appeal involves ‘legal points arguable on 

their merits (and therefore not frivolous).’” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 

(5th Cir. 1983) (citation omitted). We review the denial of Davis’s Rule 60 

motion for abuse of discretion. See Seven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi, 635 F.2d 396, 

402 (5th Cir. 1981). The denial “must have been so unwarranted as to 

constitute an abuse of discretion.” Id. A Rule 60 motion may not be used to 

circumvent the time limits for appealing, especially where, as here, the motion 

was made after the period for seeking an extension of time for appeal has 

expired. See Dunn, 302 F.3d at 492-93; see also Perez v. Stephens, 745 F.3d 

174, 177-79 (5th Cir.) (holding that Rule 60(b) does not permit circumvention 

of Rule 4’s time limits for appealing in a habeas case), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 

401 (2014). Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012), does not help Davis 

because Martinez did not create an exception “to statutory limits on appellate 

jurisdiction.” Perez, 745 F.3d at 179. The denial of Davis’s Rule 60 motion was 

not an abuse of discretion, and his appeal lacks arguable merit. See Howard, 

707 F.2d at 220; Seven Elves, 635 F.2d at 402.

A COA is DENIED AS UNNECESSARY; the IFP motion is DENIED, 

and the appeal is DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

Case: 14-20620 Document: 00513059626 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/29/2015