Fernandez v. Cox et al

Filing 60

ORDER re 59 Motion for Certificate of Appealability filed by Rene F. Fernandez. IT IS ORDERED that the court would grant relief from 54 the judgment pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b) and 62.1 if the court of appeals remands for that purpose. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 4/12/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 8 9 RENE F. FERNANDEZ, 10 Petitioner, 11 vs. 12 JAMES GREG COX, et al., 13 Case No. 2:13-cv-02158-GMN-VCF Respondents. ORDER 14 15 Petitioner has filed a request for a certificate of appealability (ECF No. 59). The court will 16 not wait for a response by respondents. A recent decision in the court of appeals leads this court to 17 decide that it will grant relief from the judgment if the court of appeals remands this action. 18 In Nasby v. McDaniel, ___ F.3d ___, 2017 WL 1314938 (9th Cir. April 10, 2017) (No. 14- 19 17313), the court of appeals reversed and remanded this court’s denial of a habeas corpus petition 20 because it neither obtained the transcripts of the trial and evidentiary hearing in the state court, nor 21 did it hold an evidentiary hearing on its own. The court of appeals based its decision upon Jones v. 22 Wood, 114 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 1997).1 23 In petitioner’s case, the state district court held a jury trial and an evidentiary hearing on his 24 post-conviction habeas corpus petition. The transcripts of the trial and the evidentiary hearing were 25 not filed with this court. Petitioner did not dispute any of the facts in the decisions of the Nevada 26 27 28 1 To the extent that Jones holds that a habeas corpus petitioner under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is entitled to an evidentiary hearing, that case arose before the enactment of restrictions on evidentiary hearings in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e). 1 Supreme Court, nor does he now, and his surviving claims all were for ineffective assistance of 2 counsel. Nonetheless, Nasby requires an independent review of the record for the purposes of the 3 deferential standard of review of § 2254(d). 4 The action is on appeal, and petitioner has not filed a motion for relief from the judgment. 5 However, the court foresees such a motion. Petitioner just would need to re-title his request for a 6 certificate of appealability and make the same arguments. The court sees no need to prolong a 7 process when the outcome is certain. 8 9 10 11 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the court would grant relief from the judgment (ECF No. 54) pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b) and 62.1 if the court of appeals remands for that purpose. DATED: April 12, 2017 12 13 _________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge United States District Court 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -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?