Thornton v. Goodrich et al

Filing 16

ORDER denying 15 Motion for Reconsideration for Certificate of Appealability by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 6/15/15.(dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-00432-LTB
RICHARD THORNTON,
Applicant,
v.
BARRY GOODRICH, Warden, BCCF; and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF COLORADO,
Respondents.

ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Applicant, Richard Thornton, is serving a term of twelve years following his conviction of
one count of Possession of Marijuana with Intent to Distribute and one count of Conspiracy to
Distribute Marijuana. He initiated this action by filing pro se an Application for a Writ of Habeas

Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, raising only one claim: that the trial court erred by failing to
grant his motion for suppression of evidence seized during a traffic stop.
On May 13, 2015, this Court denied his Application under the directive set forth in Stone v.
Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 483 (1976), which provides that a federal court may not reexamine: 1) a
state court's determination that no Fourth Amendment violation occurred; 2) a state court's
determination that a Fourth Amendment violation did occur; or 3) a state court's determination that
a Fourth Amendment violation occurred but introduction of its fruits was harmless. The Order
dismissing Mr. Thornton’s application specifically provided that there was no basis on which to
issue a certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (ECF No. 13, p. 4). A Judgment
was entered that same date (ECF No. 14).
On June 9, 2015, Mr. Thornton filed a “Motion for Reconsideration for Certificate of
Appealability” (ECF No. 15). Section 2253 of Title 28 governs appeals from district court orders

regarding habeas corpus applications. Section 2253(c)(1)(A) provides that an appeal may not be
taken from a final order in a habeas proceeding in which the detention arises out of process issued
by a State court unless a certificate of appealability (COA) has been issued. A COA should be
issued only when an applicant has made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
There is a difficulty with this provision when the district court does not decide the case on
the merits but decides the case on a procedural ground without determining whether there has been
a denial of a constitutional right. In Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) the Supreme Court
held that when the district court denies a habeas petition without reaching the prisoner's underlying
constitutional claim, a COA should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason
would find it debatable whether the application states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional
right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its
procedural ruling. Id. at 485.
. . . Section 2253 mandates that both showings be made before the court of appeals
may entertain the appeal. Each component of the § 2253(c) showing is part of a
threshold inquiry, and a court may find that it can dispose of the application in a fair
and prompt manner if it proceeds first to resolve the issue whose answer is more
apparent from the record and arguments. The recognition that the “Court will not pass
upon a constitutional question although properly presented by the record, if there is
also present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of,” Ashwander
v. TVA, 297 U.S. 288, 347, 56 S.Ct. 466, 80 L.Ed. 688 (1936) (Brandeis, J.,
concurring), allows and encourages the court to first resolve procedural issues. The
Ashwander rule should inform the court's discretion in this regard.
Id.
Applying this standard to the instant case, the court concluded that jurists of reason would
not find it debatable that Stone v. Powell precludes federal court review of his claim. Accordingly,
a certificate of appealability was denied. Applicant has set forth no meritorious argument to
challenge that determination. Accordingly, it is

2

ORDERED that the Motion for Reconsideration for Certificate of Appealability (ECF No.
15) is DENIED.
DATED

June 15

, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court

3