Bridges v. Baca et al

Filing 28

ORDER re ECF No. 27 USCA Order : Petitioner is denied a certificate of appealability with respect to the denial of his motion for relief from judgment. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 5/3/2016. ( E-mail notice (NEF) sent to the US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit re USCA case 16-15727. )(Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7

***

8
9

RANDY MAURICE BRIDGES,

Case No. 3:15-cv-00121-MMD-VPC
Petitioner,

ORDER

v.

10
11

ISIDRO BACA, et al.,
Respondents.

12
13
14

The Court dismissed this habeas corpus action on December 7, 2015, on the

15

ground that petitioner Randy Maurice Bridges' claims are barred by the procedural

16

default doctrine, and judgment was entered the same day. See Order entered

17

December 7, 2015 (ECF No. 16); Judgment (ECF No. 17). On April 5, 2016, the Court

18

denied Bridges' motion for relief from judgment. See Order entered April 5, 2016 (ECF

19

No. 24). On April 20, 2016, Bridges filed a notice of appeal (ECF No. 25), appealing

20

from the denial of the motion for relief from judgment.

21

On April 29, 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case to this

22

Court for the limited purpose of granting or denying a certificate of appealability with

23

respect to the denial of the motion for relief from judgment. See Order filed April 29,

24

2016 (ECF No. 27).

25

The standard for issuance of a certificate of appealability is governed by 28

26

U.S.C. § 2253(c). The Supreme Court has interpreted section 2253(c) as follows:

27

Where a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on the
merits, the showing required to satisfy § 2253(c) is straightforward: The
petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district

28

5

court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. The
issue becomes somewhat more complicated where, as here, the district
court dismisses the petition based on procedural grounds. We hold as
follows: When the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural
grounds 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 petition 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.

6

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see also James v. Giles, 221 F.3d 1074,

7

1077-79 (9th Cir.2000). Applying this standard, the Court finds that a certificate of

8

appealability is not warranted with respect to the denial of the motion for relief from

9

judgment.

1
2
3
4

10

The Court denied Bridges a certificate of appealability regarding its December 7,

11

2015, order granting respondents' motion to dismiss on procedural default grounds,

12

ordering the action dismissed, and directing that judgment be entered. See Order

13

entered December 7, 2015 (ECF No. 16), at 11-12.

14

In his motion for relief from judgment, Bridges made no showing justifying relief

15

from the judgment. In his motion, Bridges only reargued the question whether the

16

fugitive disentitlement doctrine was adequate to support respondents' procedural default

17

defense; he did not cite to any evidence or legal authority indicating that Nevada courts

18

have inconsistently applied the doctrine. See Bennett v. Mueller, 322 F.3d 573, 585 86

19

(9th Cir. 2003). The Court determines that jurists of reason would not find debatable the

20

Court's determination that the state courts' application of the fugitive disentitlement

21

doctrine supports respondents' procedural default defense, and would not find

22

debatable the denial of the motion for relief from judgment.

23
24
25

It is therefore ordered that petitioner is denied a certificate of appealability with
respect to the denial of his motion for relief from judgment.
DATED THIS 3rd day of May 2016.

26
27
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28
2