Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00580/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00580-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Devon Mitchell
Petitioner
United States of America
Respondent

Document Text:

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 

Devon Mitchell, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

United States of America, 

Respondent.

No. CV-11-00580-PHX-DGC

 CR-05-0886-PHX-DGC 

ORDER 

 Petitioner Devon Mitchell has filed a request for an extension of time to file an 

out-of-time appeal. Doc. 20. Mitchell seeks to appeal this Court’s order of May 17, 

2012, denying his petition to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255. See Doc. 18. Mitchell contends that he never received a copy of that order, and 

became aware of it only through a phone call to the Court on March 22, 2013. Doc. 20. 

 Mitchell attaches to his motion an uncertified copy of a letter from the Records 

Department of the Lee County Penitentiary stating that there is no record of the mailroom 

logging receipt of legal mail for Mitchell from March through July 2012. Id. at 3. The 

Court will presume for purposes of this order that Mitchell did not receive notice of entry 

of judgment until the phone call on March 22, 2013. 

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 77(d)(2) states that lack of notice of entry of 

judgment does not affect the time allowed for appeal except as provided by Federal Rule 

of Appellate Procedure (4)(a). Fed. R. Civ. P. 77(d)(2). Under Rule (4)(a), a notice of 

appeal must be filed with the district clerk within 30 days after entry of judgment. Fed. 

R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). The Court may extend this time if a party moves for an extension 

Case 2:11-cv-00580-DGC Document 21 Filed 05/29/13 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

no later than 30 days after the time for appeal expires and shows excusable neglect or 

good cause. Id. at 4(a)(5)(A). If a party fails to file for an extension within this time, the 

court may reopen the time to appeal only if it finds that the moving party did not receive 

notice of entry of judgment within 21 days after entry, the motion was filed within 180 

days after judgment was entered or 14 days after notice was received, whichever is 

earlier, and no party would be prejudiced. Id. at 4(a)(6). 

 In describing the phone call by which he learned of the Court’s order, Mitchell 

states that “I called this court, via my counselor Mr. Hines on March 22, 2013.” Doc. 20. 

Although it is not clear whether Mr. Mitchell or Mr. Hines talked with the clerk, Mr. 

Mitchell describes things he said to the clerk during the call and states that the “Clerk 

informed me that a ruling had been rendered on my 2255 motion on May 16, 2012, 

denying my motion.” Id. Mr. Mitchell then states that he contacted the Records 

Department at the Lee County facility on the same day – March 22, 2013 – “inquiring if 

any legal mail had came [sic] for me between March and July of 2012.” Id. Thus, 

whether Mr. Mitchell or Mr. Hines actually placed the call, it is apparent that Mr. 

Mitchell personally learned of the Court’s order on March 22, 2013 

 Mitchell filed this motion on May 20, 2013. This was more than 14 days after he 

received notice of the Court’s judgment on March 22, 2013, and well beyond 180 days 

after the judgment was entered. Even accepting that Mitchell did not receive the notice 

mailed to him, the Court lacks authority to reopen the time for appeal now. Fed. R. App. 

P. 4(a)(6). 

 Even if the Court were able to reopen the time for appeal, the Court finds that 

Mitchell cannot satisfy the grounds for a certificate of appealability. A certificate of 

appealability may issue for a § 2255 proceeding “only if the applicant has made a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 

When the district court rejects a constitutional claim on the merits, “[t]he Petitioner must 

demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the 

constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Case 2:11-cv-00580-DGC Document 21 Filed 05/29/13 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

see Silva v. Woodford, 279 F.3d 825, 832 (9th Cir. 2002). When the district court rejects 

a claim on procedural grounds, a petitioner must show that “jurists of reason would find it 

debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right 

and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in 

its procedural ruling.” Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. 

 Mitchell raised six claims in his § 2255 motion. Doc. 6. Magistrate Judge Mark 

E. Aspey rejected all six claims, and Mitchell objected to Judge Aspey’s ruling on four 

claims. See Doc. 18 at 3. The Court found that all four claims were procedurally 

defaulted and three of them also failed on the merits. Id. at 4-9. The Court did not 

address the merits of Mitchell’s claim of insufficiency of the evidence because this claim 

had been resolved on direct appeal by the Ninth Circuit and the Court found that Mitchell 

had not shown a probability of actual innocence that would allow this Court to seek to 

undo the Ninth Circuit’s ruling. Id. at 7-8 (citing e.g., McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 217, 

227 & n. 8; Feldman v. Henman, 815 F.2d 1318, 1321-22 (9th Cir. 1987)). The Court 

finds that reasonable jurists would not find its assessment of Mitchell’s constitutional 

claims debatable or wrong, and that reasonable jurists would not find it debatable that the 

Court was correct on its procedural ruling. Thus, no certificate of appealability is 

merited. 

 Mitchell states that he also has enclosed a motion for relief from judgment 

pursuant to Rule 60(b) and asks the Court to stay the motion pending its ruling on the 

motion for an extension to file an out-of-time appeal. Doc. 20 at 1-2. The Court is not in 

receipt of a Rule 60(b) motion and will deny Mitchell’s request for a stay as moot. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

 1. Petitioner Devon Mitchell’s motion for an extension of time to file an out 

of time appeal (Doc. 20) is denied. 

 

Case 2:11-cv-00580-DGC Document 21 Filed 05/29/13 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

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. Petitioner’s request to stay his Rule 60(b) motion is denied as moot. 

 Dated this 29th day of May, 2013. 

Case 2:11-cv-00580-DGC Document 21 Filed 05/29/13 Page 4 of 4