Doyle, vs. Archuleta, et al
Filing
87
USCA ORDER denying request re 86 Letter for authorization of a successive 2254 habeas petition filed by Michael Doyle. USCA case no. 11-1584. (bjrsl, )
FILED
Appellate Case: 11-1584
Document: 01018772872
United States Court of Appeals
Date Filed: 01/06/2012 Page: 1
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS January 6, 2012
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
In re:
MICHAEL DOYLE,
Movant.
No. 11-1584
(D.C. No. 1:07-cv-01358-WYD-KMT)
(D. Colo.)
ORDER
Before TYMKOVICH, GORSUCH, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.
Michael Doyle moves for authorization to file a second or successive
28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas application challenging his 2001 Colorado conviction
for second degree murder. Mr. Doyle’s conviction and his various attempts to
challenge it are described in an order denying a previous motion for authorization.
In re Doyle, No. 11-1222, slip op. at 1-2 (10th Cir. June 2, 2011) (unpublished
order).
As we previously explained, to obtain authorization Mr. Doyle must make a
prima facie showing that (1) his claim “relies on a new rule of constitutional law,
made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court that was
previously unavailable” or (2) “the factual predicate for the claim could not have
been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence” and “the facts
underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole,
would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for
Appellate Case: 11-1584
Document: 01018772872
Date Filed: 01/06/2012
Page: 2
constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found [him] guilty of”
second degree murder. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(A), (B). “A claim presented in a
second or successive habeas corpus application under Section 2254 that was
presented in a prior application shall be dismissed.” Id. § 2244(b)(1).
Mr. Doyle contends that his conviction is unlawful because he was denied a
direct appeal, his counsel had a conflict of interest, he was incompetent to plead
guilty, the judge participated in the plea bargain, and the court lacked subject
matter jurisdiction to convict him. He admits that he raised these claims in a
prior federal petition or application, and that they do not rely either on newly
discovered evidence or on a new, retroactively-applicable United States
Supreme Court case. Based on these admissions and our independent review, we
conclude that Mr. Doyle cannot satisfy § 2244(b).
The motion for authorization is DENIED. This denial of authorization
“shall not be appealable and shall not be the subject of a petition for rehearing or
for a writ of certiorari.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E).
Entered for the Court,
ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk
-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?