T hi s or deri s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of l aw of * th e c a se , res ju d ica ta, a n d c o llate ra l es to p p e l. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### M ay23,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C lerk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT RO D N EY J A RO M E B RO A D ES,

P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, N o. 06- 7120 v . Ea s t e rn Di s tr i c to f Ok l a h o ma G A R Y G I B SO N , W ar den,

R es pondent - A ppel l ee. ( D . C . N o . 9 9 - C V - 3 0 2 - R A W)

OR DER * B efor e B RI S CO E , M c CO NNELL , and M c KAY , C i rcui tJudg es. R odneyJ ar om e B r oades , a s t at e pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pro se , request s a cert i fi cat e of appeal abi l i ty( C O A ) thatw oul d al l ow hi m t o appea l fr om the di s tr i ct c o u rt’s o rd e r d e n y in g h is R u le 6 0 (b ) m o tio n fo r re lief f ro m a p re v io u s ju d g m e n t. Fed. R . C i v. P. 60( b) . W i th hi s m ot i on, M r . B r oades s eeks t o overturn the di s tr i ct cou rt ’s M ay4, 20 00 den i al of h i s pet i t i on for a w ri tof h abeas co rpus. B ecause w e c o n clud e tha t M r. B r oades has fai l ed t o m ake “ a s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of the deni al of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght , ” w e D E N Y hi s r eques tfora C O A , and di s m i s s the a p p e a l. 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 (c )( 2 ).-2-

I n 1995, an O kl ahoma st at e courtconvi ct ed M r . B r oades of r obberyw i th a fi r earm . T hanks part l yt o hi s tw o pr i orfel onyconvi ct i ons , M r . B r oades w as se n ten c e d to fif

tyy e a rs im p riso n m e n t. O k lah o m a sta te c o u rts rejec ted h is ch all en g es to the s en tenc e a n d co n v ict ion o n d ir ec t app ea l. M r. B roa d es’s col l at er al att acks i n s t at e courtal s o fai l ed. T her eaf t er , M r . B r oades fi l ed a m ot i on fora nunc pr o tunc or derand a pe t i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus . T he stat e d istri ct co u rtd en ied th e h ab ea s p eti ti o n an d the O k laho m a a p p ell ate c o u rt aff i rm ed, fi ndi ng M r . B r oades ’ s cl ai m s barr ed underthe doctr i ne of re s ju d ica ta . A tthe conc l us i on of thes e s t at e ac t i ons , M r . B r oades fi l ed a pe t i t i on for h ab ea s co rpu s in fed era l cou rtin w h ich h e c h all en g ed the O k laho m a c o u rt ’s s ent enci ng cal cul at i on of hi s pr i orconvi ct i ons and cl ai m ed thata conf l i ctof interest l ed to ine ffec ti v e a ssist an ce o f c o u n sel. T h e d istri ct co u rtd ism issed M r. B ro a d e s’s 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 (d ) p e tit io n a s tim e -b a rre d , o n th e g ro u n d th a t it c o n t a i n e d c l a i ms th a twe r e p r o c e d u r a l l yd e fa u l t e d u n d e rOk l a h o mas t a t e l a w. On N o v e m b e r 3 , 2 0 0 0 , th is C o u rtd e n ie d M r. B ro a d e s ’s p e titio n fo r C O A . Fourday s l at er , how ever , the U . S. Supr eme C ourthel d the r equi r ementi n § 2 2 4 4 (d) tha t hab ea s claim s b e “ p rop erlyfil ed ” re fe rs t o d eli v eryo f th e n ec essa ry document s t o an appr opr i at e off i cerand does notpert ai n t o w hetheran i ndi vi dual c la im w a s p ro c e d u ra lly b a rr e d . A rtu z v . B e n n e tt , 5 3 1 U . S . 4 , 8 (20 0 0 ). M r. B r oades pet i t i oned thi s C ourtfora r ehea r i ng bas ed on A r tuz , w hi ch w e gr ant ed. W e i s s ued a r evi s ed or derand j udgm enton D ece m ber4, 2000. I n thi s r evi s ed-3-

o rde r, w e d ec li n ed to relyo n § 2 2 4 4 (d); i n stead , w e loo k ed to the d istri ct co u rt ’s fi ndi ng thati ndepende ntand ade quat e s t at e l aw gr ounds barr ed fe der al cons i der at i on of M r . B r oades ’ s cl ai m s . N ot i ng thatw hen a s t at e pr i s oner“has defa ul t ed hi s fede r al cl ai m s i n s t at e courtpur s uantt o an i ndepende ntand adequa t e s t at e pr ocedur al rul e, fede r al habea s r evi ew . . . i s barr ed, ” C ol em an v. Thomps on , 501 U . S. 722, 750 ( 1991) , w e deni ed M r . B r oades ’ s appl i cat i on for C O A . A tthe conc l us i on of thi s fi r s thabea s pet i t i on, M r . B r oades appl i ed for leav e to fil e a su cc essiv e p eti ti o n fo r ha b ea s reli ef. W e re fu sed p erm issi o n . In 2002, he fi l ed a Rul e 60( b) m ot i on i n fede r al di s tr i ctcourts eeki ng r el i ef f r om the d e n ia l o f

h is o ri g in a l h a b e a s p e titio n . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rtd is m is s e d th e m o tio n . O n appea l , w e tr eat ed the mot i on as an unauthor i zed s ucce s s i ve § 2254 pet i t i on overw hi ch the di s tr i ctcourthad no j ur i s di ct i on. W e ac cor di ngl yvaca t ed the ju d g m e n t a n d d is m is s e d . In 2 0 0 6 , cla im in g th e b e n e fit o f th e S u p re m e C o u rt’s r e c e n t ru lin g in G onz al es v. C r os by , 545 U . S. 524 ( 2005) , M r . B r oades fi l ed a s econd 60( b) m ot i on. I n i t , M r . B r oades poi nt ed outthat , acc or di ng t o C r os by , notal l 60( b) m ot i ons m aybe cons trued as appl i cat i ons fora s econd ors ucce s s i ve habe as p e titio n . Id . at538. B r oades ar gued thi s C ourterr ed i n cons trui ng hi s fi r s t60( b) m o tio n a s a n a p p lica tio n fo r a su c c e ss iv e h a b e a s p e tit io n . H e a lso c o n ten d e d h is o ri g inal h ab ea s p eti ti o n w as n o t t im e-b arred u n d er A r tuz , that this C o u rt-4-

m i s t akenl yr efus ed t o cons i derthe mer i t s of hi s cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s on our rev iew o f h is origina l petit ion , an d that u n d er C r os by , th e se e rro rs c o n stitu te v a lid gr ounds forR ul e 60( b) r el i ef. T he di s tr i ctcourtdeni ed hi s m ot i on, pr om pt i ng th is p e titio n fo r C O A . B efor e addr es s i ng the mer i t s of M r . B r oades ’ s pet i t i on, w e mustdet erm i ne w hetheri tcount s as a “true” 60( b) m ot i on ors houl d i ns t ead be char act er i zed a s a n a p p l i c a t i o n t o fi l e a s u c c e s s i v e h a b e a s p e t i t i o n . F o l l o wi n g th e S u p r e me C our t ’ s deci s i on i n C r os by , w e hel d thata “60( b) m ot i on thatchal l enges onl ythe fede r al habea s court ’ s rul i ng on pr ocedur al i s s ues s houl d be tr eat ed as a true 6 0 (b ) m o tio n ra th e r t h a n a s u c c e s s iv e p e titio n .” Spi tz nas v. B oone , 464 F. 3d 1 2 1 3 , 1 2 1 6 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) . M r . Br o a d e s ’ s mo t i o n me e t s th i s d e fi n i t i o n : He c h a l l e n g e s th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s M a y2 0 0 0 d e t e rmi n a t i o n th a th i s h a b e a s c l a i ms w er e pr ocedur al l ybarr ed on s t at e l aw gr ounds . W e tr eathi s pet i t i on, ther efor e, a s a tru e 6 0 (b ) m o tio n . M r. B ro a d e s m a ya p p e a l th e d istric t co u rt’s d ism iss a l o f h is m o tio n o n lyif w e fi r s ti s s ue a CO A . 28 U . S. C . § 2253( c) ( 1) . T o s ecur e a CO A , M r . B r oades m us tdemonstr at e that“r eas onabl e j ur i s t s coul d debat e w hether. . . the pet i t i on sh o u ld h av e b ee n reso lved in a d iffe ren t m an n er o r th at th e issu es p rese n ted w ere adequa t e t o des erve enc our agementt o pr ocee d further . ” Mille r-E l v. C o c kre ll , 537 U . S. 322, 336 ( 2003) ( quot i ng Slack v . McD ani el , 5 2 9 U . S . 4 7 3 , 4 8 4 (20 0 0 ))-5-

(in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ). M r. B ro a d e s, h o w e v e r, h a s s u c c e e d e d o n lyin d e m o n s tr a tin g th a t h is c la im s a re w ith o u t m e ri t. T o begi n w i th, the Supr eme C ourti n C r os by m a d e c lea r th a t A r tuz ’ s change in th e in te rp re ta tio n o f th e A E D P A s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s , 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 (d ), s ee A r t uz , 531 U . S. at8, does notcountas the s or tof “e xtr aor di naryci r cumst ance ” n e c e s s a ry fo r a s u c c e s s f u l R u le 6 0 (b ) m o tio n . C r os by , 5 4 5 U .S . a t 5 3 6 -3 7 . Si m pl ybecaus e the di s tr i ctcourtr el i ed i n parton a now - di s pl ace d i nt erpr et at i on o f § 2 2 4 4 (d)’s toll ing p rov isi o n s d o es n o t entit le M r. B roa d es to reli ef. B u t m o re d a m n in g to M r. B ro a d e s’s a p p e a l, th e fe d e ra l d istric t co u rt d id n o t re ly excl us i vel yon § 2244( d) ( 2) i n di s m i s s i ng hi s habea s pet i t i on: i tci t ed i ndepende nt an d ad eq u ate state law g rou n d s tha t prec lud ed itfro m co n side ri n g B roa d es’s hab eas cl ai m s. M r. B roades do es not chal l eng e this fi nd i ng . H e do es not s o m u c h a s a d d re ss it. B u t th e law is c lea r: W h e n a sta te p riso n e r d e fa u lts h is fe d e ra l cla im s in sta te c o u rt “ ‘p u rsu a n t to a n in d e p e n d e n t an d a d e q u a te s tate pr ocedur al rul e, fede r al habea s r evi ew . . . i s barr ed unl es s the pr i s oner ’ can s at i s fyei therthe ‘ caus e and pr ej udi ce’ s t andar d, or , al t ernat i vel y , the

‘ fundament al m i s carr i age of j us t i ce s t andar d. ’ ” Moor e v. R eynolds , 153 F. 3d 1086, 1096 ( 10th C i r . 1998) ( quot i ng C ol em an , 501 U . S. at750) . M r . B r oades h a s s a tis fie d n e ith e r. H is h a b e a s c la im s w e re p ro p e rl yd is m is s e d . A s t o M r . B r oades ’ s cont ent i on thatno fede r al courthas r evi ew ed the s ubs t ance of hi s i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m , w e r efe rhi m t o our-6-

Ja n u a ry2 0 0 1 d e n ial o f h is “ m o tio n to re c a ll m a n d a te,” w h e re w e e x p licitlyh e ld that“[t ] o the ext entM r . B r oades . . . now cont end[s ] w e neve raddr es s ed the m e rits o f

h is o th e r c laim s ra ise d in h is [ o rig in a l] p e tit io n ”

— n a m e ly , h is i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m — “w e not e he fai l ed t o r ai s e them on a p p e a l, an d th e re b ya b a n d o n e d o r w a iv e d th e m .” R . v o l. 1, D o c . 4 9 , A p p . 2 a t 2 n .1 . T hi s i s the fourth pet i t i on M r . B r oades has br oughtbefor e us att acki ng the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of habe as corpus s om e s even y ear s ago. W e ca nnots ay emphat i cal l yenough: M r . B r oades ’ s cl ai m s ar e w i thoutm er i t . T heydo notm eet the s t andar d forr el i ef s pel l ed outi n R ul e 60( b) , theydo notdes erve C O A , and as w e h a v e sa id tw ice p re v io u sly , R . v o l. 1, D o c . 4 9 , A p p . 2 ; B ro a de s v . P op p e ll , N o . 0 2 -7 1 5 6 , slip o p . at 1 -2 (1 0 th C ir. D e c . 3 0 , 2 0 0 2 ), th e yd o n o t q u a lifyh im to file a su c c e ss iv e h a b e a s p e tit io n . F u rth e r liti g a tio n o n th e se iss u e s w o u ld c o n s titu te a n e g re g io u s w a s te o f ta x p a y e r r e s o u rc e s . A ccor di ngl y , w e DE NY M r . B r oades ’ s r eques tfora C O A and D I SM I SS th is a p p e a l. E n ter e d fo r th e C o u rt, M ich a e l W . M c C o n n e ll C i r cui tJ udge