Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-18-31173/USCOURTS-ca5-18-31173-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Shoemaker
Appellant
Darrel Vannoy, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-31173

MICHAEL SHOEMAKER,

Petitioner−Appellant,

versus

DARREL VANNOY, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary,

Respondent−Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

No. 3:10-CV-344

Before SMITH, COSTA, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Michael Shoemaker, Louisiana prisoner #98987, was convicted of 

attempted second degree murder in August 2005 and sentenced to 100 years 

* 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

April 21, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 18-31173 Document: 00515389637 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2020
No. 18-31173

2

of imprisonment. He seeks a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to appeal the

denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion to reopen the judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as time-barred. See Ochoa Canales v. Quarterman, 507 F.3d 884, 887−88 (5th Cir. 2007).

“[A] substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” must be 

made for a COA to issue. § 2253(c)(2); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 

327 (2003). A prisoner “seeking a COA must demonstrate that a procedural 

ruling barring relief is itself debatable among jurists of reason; otherwise, the 

appeal would not deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Buck v. Davis, 

137 S. Ct. 759, 777 (2017) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

“The Rule 60(b)(6) holding [Shoemaker] challenges would be reviewed for 

abuse of discretion during a merits appeal.” Id.

“[T]he COA question is therefore whether a reasonable jurist could conclude that the District Court abused its discretion in declining to reopen the 

judgment” under Rule 60(b) based on the showing Shoemaker made. Id.; see

Hernandez v. Thaler, 630 F.3d 420, 428 (5th Cir. 2011). “In applying such a 

standard, it is not enough that the granting of relief might have been permissible, or even warranted—denial must have been so unwarranted as to constitute an abuse of discretion.” Diaz v. Stephens, 731 F.3d 370, 374 (5th Cir. 2013) 

(internal quotation marks, citation, and bracketing omitted). Because Shoemaker has failed to make the required showing, a COA is DENIED. See Buck, 

137 S. Ct. at 773, 777; see also Diaz, 731 F.3d at 374.

Shoemaker contends that the district court erred by denying his 

Rule 60(b) motion without an evidentiary hearing, and he refers to his substantive claims as well as his procedural challenge. He is not required to obtain 

a COA to appeal the denial of an evidentiary hearing; therefore, to the extent 

he seeks a COA on this issue, we construe his COA request “as a direct appeal 

Case: 18-31173 Document: 00515389637 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2020
No. 18-31173

3

from the denial of an evidentiary hearing.” Norman v. Stephens, 817 F.3d 226, 

234 (5th Cir. 2016). 

Shoemaker does not indicate what he would present at an evidentiary 

hearing to persuade the district court to reconsider its dismissal on limitations 

grounds. And without a reversal of the limitations ruling, the substantive 

claims are of no moment. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484−85 (2000); 

see also Buck, 137 S. Ct. at 777. 

In view of the foregoing, and given his counseled brief’s failure to articulate any specific argument supporting his claim regarding the lack of an evidentiary hearing, Shoemaker has not shown that the district court abused its 

discretion in not holding such a hearing. See Norman, 817 F.3d at 235; see also 

United States v. Charles, 469 F.3d 402, 408 (5th Cir. 2006). Therefore, the 

judgment is AFFIRMED as to the lack of an evidentiary hearing.

Case: 18-31173 Document: 00515389637 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/21/2020