2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 1-5-2006 

# T urne r v . D r agovich P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-3681

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " T urne r v . Dr ag ovich" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1789. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1789NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N O . 04- 3681

________________ W I LL I AM D. TURNER ,

A ppel l ant v. M AR T I N L . DR AGOVI CH ; T HE DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y O F T H E C O U N T Y O F P H IL A . M S . L Y N N E A B R A H A M ; A TTY G EN PA , TH E A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F THE S TAT E OF P ENN. * M R. GERALD J . P APP ERT *Pur s uantt o F. R . A . P. 43( c)

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt Fort he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a ( D . C . C i v. N o. 99- cv- 03975) C hi ef D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J ames T. G i l es

__________________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

D ece m ber15, 2005 B efore: M cK E E , F U E N T E S and N Y G A A R D , C i rcui tJudg es

( Fi l ed J anuary5, 2006)

_________________ OP I NI ON

_________________ P E R C UR I AMA s w e w r i t e pr i m ar i l yfort he part i es , and the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s r eci t at i on of the 1 p r o c e d u r a l h i s t o r y w a s t h o r o u g h , w e p r o v i d e o n l y th i s b r i e f s u m m a r y. 2 A ppel l antW i l l i am D . T ur nerw as convi ct ed i n 1981 of fi r s tdegr ee mur derand pos s es s i on of an i ns t rum entof cr i m e, and s ent ence d t o l i fe i n pr i s on on t he murde rchar ge pl us an addi t i onal 21⁄2 - 5 y ear s i m pr i s onm entforthe w eapons offe ns e. T urner ’ s di r ect a p p e a l w a s c o m p lete d in 1 9 8 3 . It w a s f o llo w e d b yf

o u r se p a ra te s tate p e tit io n s f o r p o stconvi ct i on r el i ef. T he Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our tdeni ed Turne r ’ s r eques tfor a llo w a n c e o f

a p p e a l f ro m th e d e n ial o f

h is th ird p e tit io n o n A p ril 8 , 1 9 9 7 . T u rn e r’s f o u rth s t a t e p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n p e t i t i o n w a s d e n i e d a s u n t i m e l y. 1 T u rn e r f iled a p e tit io n f

o r w rit o f

h a b e a s c o rp u s p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 in U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a i n A ugus t1999. T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed the pet i t i on as unt i m el yi n J ul y2000, concl udi ng thatthe one y e a r l im ita tio n p e ri o d w a s n o t to lle d w h ile th e u n tim e ly f o u rt h s ta te p e titio n w a s p e n d in g . T h a t p e tit io n w a s n o t a “ p ro p e rlyf iled ” p e tit io n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 (d )(2 ). In A p ril 2002, w e af

fi r m ed i n T ur nerv. D r agovi t ch, C . A . N o. 00- 2348, pur s uantt o A r tuz v. B ennett , 531 U . S. 4 ( 2000) . I n A r tuz, the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our thel d t hatan a p p lica tio n th a t co n tain s p ro c e d u ra llyb a rre d c laim s is still p ro p e rlyf iled “ w h e n its del i veryand ac cept ance ar e i n compl i ance w i t h t he appl i cabl e l aw s and rul es governi ng fi l i ngs , ” i ncl udi ng t he t i m e l i m i t s forfi l i ng. I d. at8. T he U . S. Supr eme C our tdeni ed T u rn e r’s p e tit io n f

o r a w rit o f

c e rtio ra ri. I n D ece m ber2003, T ur nerfi l ed a Rul e 60( b) m ot i on unders ubpar agr aphs ( 1) and3

( 3) , chal l engi ng t he i nt egr i t yof the habe as pr ocee di ngs , and cl ai m i ng a vi ol at i on of due pr oces s beca us e hi s cl ai m of ac tual i nnocenc e w as i gnor ed. H e di d notdi r ect l ychal l enge h is co n v ict ion an d sen tenc e. In a n o rde r en tered o n A u g u st 9, 20 0 4 , the D istri ct C o u rt hel d thati tcoul d notcons i dert he R ul e 60( b) m ot i on on t he mer i t s , beca us e i tw as u n tim e ly . It w a s f

iled m o re th a n 3 y e a rs a f ter th e h a b e a s p ro c e e d in g s h a d c o n c lu d e d in the di s tr i ctcour t . Fed. R . C i v. Pr o. 60( b) ( one y eart i m e l i m i tform ot i ons under s ubpar agr aphs ( 1) , ( 2) , and ( 3) ) . T he courtw enton t o concl ude that , i n anyevent , T ur ner had fa i l ed t o demonstr at e thatt her e had be en anym i s t ake orfr aud i n t he habe as p ro c e e d in g s , o r t h a t e x c e p tio n a l c ir c u m s ta n c e s ju s tif ie d re o p e n in g th e ju d g m e n t. A t i m el ym ot i on forr econs i der at i on w as deni ed, and Turne rappea l ed. T h e re a f ter , the D istric t C o u rt g ra n ted a c e rtific a te o f a p p e a lab ili tyw ith re sp e c t to i t s cons truct i on of R ul e 60( b) . W e appoi nt ed couns el , butcouns el now s eeks t o w i t hdr aw fr om t hi s appea l on t he gr ound t hatt her e ar e no non- fr i vol ous ar gum ent s t o be made on T urner ' s behal f, and s he has fi l ed a br i ef pur s uantt o A nder s v. C al i forni a, 386 U . S. 738 ( 1967) . A ppoi nt m entof couns el i n a habe as pr ocee di ng i s notcons t i tut i onal l ym andat ed, how ever , and, acc or di ngl y , a mot i on t o w i t hdr aw comport i ng w i t h t he r equi r ement s of A nd ers i s not necessary . S ee P enn sy l van i a v. F i nley , 48 1 U . S . 55 1, 55 9 (198 7). S ee al so 18 U . S. C . § 3006A ( a) ( 1) . N evert hel es s , w e not i fi ed Turne rof hi s couns el ' s m ot i on and gave hi m an oppor tuni t yt o r es pond, w hi ch he di d, and hi s r es pons e i ncl udes a mot i on for ap p o intm en t of

n ew co u n sel. H av ing ind ep en d en tl yrev iew ed the A n d ers b ri ef , T u rne r’sT urnerhas demonstr at ed thathe i s capa bl e of, and des i r es t o, ar gue hi s ow n cas e. 2 T urneral l eged thatey ew i t nes s E l l a M art i n l i ed aboutherempl oym entatH or i zon 3 H o u se , an d th u s w a s n o t a c re d ib le w itn e ss in a n yre sp e c t. 4 re sp o n se a n d th e e n tire r e c o rd , w e a re sa tisf ied th a t th e re is n o b a sis f o r c o llate ra l re lief

in thi s cas e, and thus gr antcouns el ' s m ot i on and af fi r m . T urner ’ s m ot i on forappoi nt m entof new couns el i s deni ed. 2 W e hav e j uri sdi ct i on pu rs uan tt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 29 1. T urner contends i n h i s pro se b ri ef that the c erti fica te of

ap p ea labili tyw as a p p rop ri atelyg ran ted, be ca u se th ere w ere Si xth A m endmentvi ol at i ons athi s t r i al , i ncl udi ng tr i al couns el ’ s i neff ect i ve handl i ng of the C om m on w eal t h’s use of fals e evidence to vo uch for the credibi l i t yof it s keyw i t ness. 3 In a d d iti o n , the o rig in a l ju d g m e n t th a t h is h a b e a s p e tit io n w a s u n tim e lyis n u ll an d v o id underG onzal ez v. C r os by , 125 S. C t . 2641 ( U . S. 2005) , a ca s e dec i ded af t erthe D i s t r i ct C o u r tg r a n t e d t h e c e r t i f i c a t e o f a p p e a l a b i l i t y. A ppoi nt ed couns el ar gued i n t he A nder s br i ef thatr eas onabl e j ur i s t s coul d not di s agr ee, M i l l er - E l v. C ockr el l , 537 U . S. 322, 338 ( 2003) , thatthe R ul e 60( b) m ot i on w as unt i m el y . W e agr ee w i t h T ur ner , how ever , thatthe ce r t i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i t yw as not i m pr ovi dent l ygr ant ed. T he ques t i ons r ai s ed byR ul e 60( b) m ot i ons fi l ed i n t he cont extof habea s pr ocee di ngs w er e s ubs t ant i al and unr es ol ved w hen the D i s t r i ctC our trul ed on T urner ’ s R ul e 60( b) m ot i on. A ft erthe D i s t r i ctC our trul ed, w e dec i ded Pr i dgen v. Shannon, 380 F. 3d 721, 727 ( 3d C i r . 2004) , cert . deni ed, 125 S. C t . 1298 ( 2005) , hol di ng thata R ul e 60( b) m ot i on m aybe adj udi cat ed on the mer i t s w hen the fa ctual pr edi cat e ofT he Supr eme C our t , w hi l e l eavi ng the i s s ue open, di d notdi s appr ove of the pr act i ce 4 of r equi r i ng a ce r t i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i t yas a pr er equi s i t e t o appea l i ng the deni al of a Rul e 60 ( b) mot i on , c a l l i ng i ta “ pl a us i bl e a nd e ff e c t i ve s c r e e ni ng r e qu i r e ment . ” 12 5 S. C t . at2650 n. 7. 5 the mot i on at t acks t he manneri n w hi ch an e ar l i erhabea s j udgm entw as pr ocur ed, and not th e u n d e rly in g c o n v ictio n . P rio r to P rid g e n , tha t issu e w a s u n re so lv e d in th is c irc u it. A l though t he i s s ue i n T ur ner ’ s cas e w as w hether , i f pr oper l ycons t rued as a true R ul e 60( b) m ot i on, T ur ner ’ s D ece m ber2003 fi l i ng w as unt i m el y , the ques t i on of the pr opercons t ruct i on of hi s fi l i ng, t hati s , w hetheri tw as an i m perm i s s i bl e s ucce s s i ve h a b e a s p e titio n , w as ati s s ue. B eca us e ther e w as a s ubs t ant i al pr ocedur al i s s ue dec i ded adver s el yt o T ur ner , and the ca s e i nvol ved a va l i d cl ai m of the deni al of a c ons t i tut i onal rig h t, S lac k v . M c D a n iel, 5 2 9 U .S . 4 7 3 , 4 8 4 (2 0 0 0 ), th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t er r in g r a n t i n g th e c e r t i f

i c a t e o f a p p e a l a b i l i t y. W e nonethel es s aff

i r m . T he D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l ycons t rued the mot i on as arisi n g u n d er R u le 60 (b). I n G o n za lez v . C rosb y , 1 2 5 S . C t. 2 6 4 1 , the S u p rem e C o u rt hel d thata mot i on forr el i ef f r om j udgm ent , s uch as T urner ’ s , w hi ch cha l l enges onl yt he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s pr i orrul i ng t hatt he habe as pet i t i on w as t i m e- barr ed, i s notthe equi val ent of a s econd ors ucce s s i ve habe as pet i t i on, and maybe cons i der ed underR ul e 60( b) . I d. at 2 6 4 8 . T h is n e c e s s a ri ly m e a n s th a t th e tim e re q u ir e m e n ts o f th e ru le a p p ly. Id . a t 2 6 4 9 . 4 R u le 60 (b) p rov ides in p erti n en t part, that: “O n m o ti o n an d u p o n su ch term s as a re j us t , the courtm ayr el i eve a par t y. . . fr om a fi nal j udgm ent , or der , orpr ocee di ng forthe fol l ow i ng r eas ons : ( 1) m i s t ake, i nadvert ence , s urpr i s e, orexcus abl e negl ect ; . . . [or ] ( 3)6

fr aud ( w hetherher et ofor e denomi nat ed i ntr i ns i c orextr i ns i c) , m i s r epr es ent at i on, orot her m isc o n d u c t o f

a n a d v e rse p a rty .” F e d . R . C iv . P ro . 6 0 (b ). T h e ru le f u rth e r p ro v id e s th a t: “The m ot i on s hal l be made . . . forr eas ons ( 1) [and] ( 3) notm or e than one y earaft erthe j udgm ent , or der , orpr ocee di ng w as ent er ed ort aken. ” I d. T urner ’ s R ul e 60( b) m ot i on, i ns ofaras he s oughtt o br i ng i tunders ubpar agr aphs ( 1) and ( 3) , w as pl ai nl youtof t i m e, a s e x p lain e d b yth e D istric t C o u rt. M o reo v er, th e D istri ct C o u rtd id n o t err i n co n clud ing that n o ex tr ao rdin ary c irc u m sta n c e s e x iste d f o r re o p e n in g T u rn e r’s h a b e a s c a se . W e p re v io u slyd e c id e d th a t, underA r tuz, T ur ner ’ s habea s pet i t i on w as unt i m el y . E ven i f thi s rul i ng had bee n in c o rr e c t ( a n d it w a s n o t, s e e P a c e v . D iG u g lie lm o , 1 2 5 S . C t. 1 8 0 7 , 1 8 1 4 (U .S . 2 0 0 5 )) , a m o ti o n u n d er R u le 60 (b)(6 ) ca n o n lyb e g ran ted in ex tr ao rdin arycircu m stan ce s. In G onzal ez, t he Supr eme C our tcons i der ed w hetheri t s deci s i on i n A r tuz, even a s s um i ng thati tr ender ed the di s t r i ctcourt ’ s pr evi ous unt i m el i nes s rul i ng i ncorr ect , w as notan extr aor di naryci r cumst ance j us t i fy i ng r eopeni ng the habe as j udgm ent . A r tuz does not j us t i fy“r eopeni ng l ong- ago di s m i s s al s bas ed on a l ow ercour t ’ s undul ypar s i m oni ous i nt erpr et at i on of § 2244( d) ( 2) . . . . ” G onzal ez, 125 S. C t . at2650. T h e S u p re m e C o u rt f

u rth e r re a so n e d th a t th e p e tit io n e r’s lac k o f d ili g e n c e in pur s ui ng hi s s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons ar gum entw as a contr i but i ng fac t ori n det erm i ni ng w hetherextr aor di naryci r cumst ance s exi s t ed. I d. at2651. H er e, T urner ’ s l ack of dil i gen ce i n p ursui ng his i nn ocen ce argum ent s i m i l arl yrenders hi s case “al l the les sextr aor di nary . ” I d. Fur t herm or e, even i f a s how i ng of ac tual i nnocenc e coul d t r i gger

equi t abl e t ol l i ng, T ur nerw oul d have t o s uppor thi s al l egat i ons w i t h new r el i abl e and pr obat i ve evi dence t hatw as notpr es ent ed attr i al . Schl up v. D el o, 513 U . S. 298, 327 ( 1995) . H i s uns uppor t ed s t at ementfai l s t o s at i s fythi s s t andar d, fur t heres t abl i s hi ng an absenc e of e xtr aordi naryci rcum st ances. W e w i l l gr antcouns el ' s m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw and af fi r m the j udgm entof the D i s tr i ct C o u rt . T u rn e r’ s m o tio n f o r a p p o in tm e n t o f

n e w c o u n s e l is d e n ie d .