Saunders v. State of Alabama

Filing 93

Order DENYING 90 MOTION for Certificate of Appealability filed by Timothy W. Saunders as set out. Signed by Chief Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 02/09/2021. (srd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TIMOTHY W. SAUNDERS,
Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF ALABAMA,
Respondent.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION: 1:10-00439-KD-C

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Timothy W. Saunders (Saunders)' Motion for
Certificate of Appealability (Doc. 90) and Respondent State of Alabama (State)'s Opposition (Doc.
92).
Specifically, before the Court is Saunders' motion for a certificate of appealability (COA) to
appeal the Court's denial of his Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend as to the Court's denial of his Rule
60(b)(6) motion. Saunders seeks a COA as with regard to the following issues, claiming that for same,
reasonable jurists could disagree: 1) whether his Rule 60(b)(6) Motion was untimely; 2) whether the
applicable standard to analyze the conflict of interest is that of a constitutional violation rather than a
statutory violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3599; 3) whether any conflict of interest was waived; and 4) whether
due process required an evidentiary hearing for the proper adjudication of the Rule 60(b)(6) Motion.
Saunders seeks to appeal the denial of his most recent Rule 59(e) motion. A COA is required
for an appeal arising from Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(b) motions following a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition.
To obtain a COA, Saunders must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right[]”
-- that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have
been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve
encouragement to proceed further.'"). Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot
v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 800, 893 n.4 (1983)). See also 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) ("[a] certificate of

1

appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right[])". See generally Perez v. Secretary, Fla. Dept. of Corr., 711 F.3d
1263, 1264 (11th Cir. 2013) (Rule 59(e) motion); Gonzalez v. Secretary for the Dept. of Corr., 366
F.3d 1253, 1263 (11th Cir. 2004) (Rule 60(b) motion). If dismissed on the merits, the petitioner must
demonstrate the district court’s conclusion was debatable or wrong. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. However
if dismissed on procedural grounds, the petitioner must make two (2) showings: “(1) ‘that jurists of
reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional
right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its
procedural ruling.’” Lambrix v. Secretary, Dept. of Corr., 872 F.3d 1170, 1179 (11th Cir. 2017)
(quoting Slack, supra). The Supreme Court makes clear that the “issuance of a COA must not be pro
forma or a matter of course.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 337 (2003).
Upon consideration, the Court finds that Saunders has not satisfied his burden of showing
entitlement to issuance of a COA. Specifically, Saunders has failed to demonstrate that reasonably
jurists could disagree as to whether: his Rule 60(b)(6) Motion was untimely, the Court applied an
incorrect conflict of interest standard, the Court incorrectly considered his conflict waiver, and/or that
the lack of an evidentiary hearing violated his due process rights. In contrast, the State's opposition
details the grounds supporting a denial of a COA, and the Court adopts by reference thereto the
rationale set forth in same (Doc. 92). Thus, it is ORDERED that Saunders' motion for a COA (Doc.
90) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED this the 9th day of February 2021.
/s/ Kristi K. DuBose
KRISTI K. DUBOSE
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2