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