Woodson v. Dept. of Corrections

Filing 128

ORDER Denying 123 125 Motions for Certificate of Appealability and Denying 126 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. Signed by Senior Judge Patricia A. Seitz on 9/29/2020. See attached document for full details. (pa00)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
02-21921-CIV-PAS

CARLOS L. WOODSON,
Petitioner,
v.
SEC’Y DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS,
Defendant.
________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTIONS
FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AND TO PROCEED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL
THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Petitioner’s Motion for Certificate of
Appealability [DE 123], his Amended Application for Certificate of Appealability,
[DE 125], and Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis on Appeal [DE 126].
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner is not entitled to any of the relief he seeks,
and the Motions must be denied.
I. Background
These three Motions arise out of the denial of the Petitioner’s Rule 60(b)
Motion in which the Petitioner sought to reopen this habeas case seeking an order
requiring the state to allow him access to the DNA evidence presented at the state
court trial, to prove his actual innocence. This Court dismissed the Motion because
it was in substance a second or successive habeas petition, which required him first

to obtain prior authorization from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals for this
Court to consider it. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Because Petitioner did not do so,
this Court lacked jurisdiction to consider the Petitioner’s Rule 60 Motion.
Petitioner’s three separate Motions request: reconsideration of the denial, the
issuance of a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on
appeal.
II. Motions for Certificate of Appealability and Motion for Reconsideration
In his Motion for Certificate of Appealability, Petitioner requests that the
Court either reconsider the merits of the August 10, 2020 denial of his Rule 60(b)
Motion, or issue a certificate of appealability [DE 123]. Petitioner argues that
evidence exists in the case that would show that he is actually innocent and that his
state court conviction resulted from a constitutional violation and thus a
fundamental miscarriage of justice will occur if the Court does not correct this error
by reopening this habeas case [DE 123 at 1-2]. The Petitioner specifies that he
seeks a Certificate of Appealability to determine “[w]hether the fundamental
miscarriage of justice exception is subject to the second or successive bar applied by
this Court as the basis for dismissing Petitioner’s rule 60(b) motion for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.” [DE 123 at 2].
Petitioner also filed an Amended Application for Certificate of Appealability.
In that Motion, Petitioner contends that the Court abused its discretion by
dismissing his Rule 60(b) Motion [DE 125]. Petitioner argues that the Court
misconstrued his Rule 60(b) Motion as he did not seek to challenge his state court

2

conviction through that Motion, but rather sought to reopen his 2002 habeas
proceeding to obtain evidence that would support his actual innocence claim. He
further argues that denial of his request to obtain additional evidence would result
in a fundamental miscarriage of justice because the Petitioner is actually innocent.
As stated above, this Court determined that it did not have jurisdiction to
consider the Movant’s Rule 60 Motion because he had failed to obtain authorization
from the Eleventh Circuit to file a successive § 2254 petition. The Eleventh Circuit
has held that where a district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a Rule
60(b) motion it also lacks jurisdiction to grant a COA. See Williams v. Chatman, 510
F.3d 1290, 1295 (11th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). Boone v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.,
377 F.3d 1315, 1317 (11th Cir.2004) (per curiam) (vacating a COA granted by the
district court, which lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the prisoner's Rule 60(b)
motion). Further, no COA is required to appeal this Court’s dismissal for lack of
jurisdiction of an unauthorized successive habeas petition. Hubbard v. Campbell,
379 F.3d 1245, 1246–47 (11th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, the Court denies the
Petitioner’s request that a Certificate of Appealability issue.
To the extent that the Petitioner requests that the Court reconsider the
dismissal of his Rule 60(b) Motion for lack of jurisdiction, the Petitioner has
presented no reason for this Court to ignore the established precedent regarding
successive § 2254 motions styled as Rule 60(b) motions. On this issue, Petitioner
states that the Court misconstrued the relief he sought, in the Rule 60 Amended
Motion. However, in that motion, Petitioner stated inter alia,

3

Extraordinary circumstances exist in this case which warrant Rule
60(b)(6) relief. Such relief is necessary in order to vindicate Woodson’s
pretrial state and federal constitutional rights to access to the
prosecution’s DNA evidence . . .so that Woodson can subject the
evidence to reliable separate (STR) DNA testing in order to obtain the
exculpatory evidence he needs to prove his actual innocence.
[DE 115 at 3]. Thus, Petitioner did not seek to challenge the integrity of the
proceedings surrounding the resolution of his habeas Petition in this Court, but
rather sought to collect additional evidence to challenge the validity of his state
court conviction. Given this, there is no merit to Petitioner’s argument that the
Court misconstrued his Rule 60 Motions and improperly denied those Motions as
successive attacks on the purported errors in his state court conviction.
III. Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
In this Motion, Petitioner states that his financial status has not changed
since he was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in his prior proceedings [DE
126]. Thus, he contends that he is entitled to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis.
Applications to appeal in forma pauperis are governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915
and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24. A federal court may authorize a party
to proceed in forma pauperis upon an affidavit of indigency. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); see
Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1). An appeal, however, “may not be taken in forma pauperis
if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(3); accord Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3)(A). A party who seeks appellate review of
an issue does so in good faith if the issue is not frivolous from an objective standard.
See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). In other words, an IFP
action is frivolous, and thus not brought in good faith, if it is “without arguable
4

merit either in law or fact.” Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2001);
Accord Napier v. Preslicka, 314 F.3d 528, 531 (11th Cir. 2002) (holding that an in
forma pauperis action is frivolous if it is without arguable merit either in law or
fact.).
The Court finds that Petitioner’s request to appeal in forma pauperis is
frivolous, and thus not taken in good faith. Specifically, Woodson’s Rule 60(b)
motion that the Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction involved the same issues
raised in his original § 2255 motion, and thus, was a second or successive § 2255
motion. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 531-32 (2005). As such, Woodson had
to first receive permission from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals before this
Court had jurisdiction to consider that Motion. Because he did not do so, the Court
was required to dismiss the Motion for lack of jurisdiction. See Farris v. United
States, 333 F.3d 1211, 1216 (11th Cir. 2003). Woodson has not presented a
nonfrivolous argument for appealing the dismissal of his Rule 60(b) motion for lack
of jurisdiction, and thus his request is not made in good faith. Therefore, it is
ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner’s Motion for Certificate of Appealability [DE 123], and Amended
Application for Certificate of Appealability, [DE 125] are DENIED.
2. A certificate of appealability SHALL NOT ISSUE due to lack of jurisdiction
to issue a certificate.
3. The Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis on Appeal [DE 126] is
DENIED.

5

4. The Court certifies that the request to appeal the Court’s dismissal of the
Movant’s Rule 60(b) Motion for lack of jurisdiction is not taken in good faith.
DONE and ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 29th day of September, 2020.
_________________________________
PATRICIA A. SEITZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6