Shields v. USA
Filing
9
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY RE 7 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT SHIELDS' RULE 59(e) MOTION. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 4/20/2020. (blflc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/20/2020) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/20/2020: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (tshS, COURT STAFF).
Case 5:17-cv-03978-BLF Document 9 Filed 04/20/20 Page 1 of 2
1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
SAN JOSE DIVISION
5
6
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
7
v.
8
MELVIN RUSSELL “RUSTY” SHIELDS,
9
Defendant.
10
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY RE ORDER
DENYING DEFENDANT SHIELDS’
RULE 59(e) MOTION
[Re: ECF 552]
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Case No. 12-cr-00410-BLF-1
Case No. 17-cv-03978-BLF
12
On January 21, 2020, this Court denied Defendant Melvin Russell “Rusty” Shields’ motion
13
14
for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and his request for an evidentiary hearing on that motion. See
15
Order Denying § 2255 Motion, ECF 545.1 The Court denied a certificate of appealability. See id.
16
Judgment was entered on January 21, 2020. See Judgment, ECF 546.
17
Shields thereafter filed both a notice of appeal and a motion for reconsideration under
18
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). See Notice of Appeal, ECF 549; Rule 59(e) Motion, ECF
19
551. On March 12, 2020, this Court denied the Rule 59(e) motion after determining that the
20
motion was untimely and that this Court lacked authority to deem the motion timely as requested
21
by Shields. See Order Denying Rule 59(e) Motion, ECF 552. On April 13, 2020, the United
22
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an order remanding the case to this Court for
23
the limited purpose of either granting or denying a certificate of appealability with respect to the
24
order denying Shields’ Rule 59(e) Motion. The Court of Appeals’ remand order was entered on
25
the district court docket on April 20, 2020.
26
27
28
The documents referenced herein were filed in both Shields’ criminal case and his parallel civil
case. For the sake of simplicity, this order refers only to the docket of the criminal case,
12-cr-00410-BLF-1.
1
Case 5:17-cv-03978-BLF Document 9 Filed 04/20/20 Page 2 of 2
1
“A certificate of appealability may issue . . . only if the applicant has made a substantial
2
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This standard is satisfied
3
if “jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of [the] constitutional
4
claims” or “conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed
5
further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
6
484 (2000)). Under this standard, the Court concludes that Shields is not entitled to a certificate of
7
appealability. No reasonable jurist would find debatable the untimeliness of Shield’s Rule 59(e)
8
motion.
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
Dated: April 20, 2020
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?