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, )

Download PDF
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 at 1-2 (10th Cir. June 2, 2011) (unpublished order).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?