NORWOOD v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Filing 62

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Directing the Clerk to reopen this case. Case reopened. ORDERED that the Petitioner's certificate of appealability 61 is denied. ORDERED that the Clerk shall close this case. Signed by Judge Robert B. Kugler on 7/8/2019. (rtm, )(nm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
_________________________________________
MICHAEL NORWOOD,
:
:
Civ. No. 15-2996 (RBK)
Petitioner,
:
:
v.
:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
:
AND ORDER
:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
:
:
Respondent.
:
_________________________________________ :
Before the Court is Petitioner, Michael Norwood’s request for a certificate of appealability
(ECF No. 61), as to the Court’s June 11, 2019, Order denying his motion for relief from judgment.
(ECF No. 60). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate
of appealability, a litigant may not appeal from a final order1 in a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. §
2255. A certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
“When the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching
the prisoner’s underlying constitutional claim, a [certificate of appealability] 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.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

1

Courts have applied this requirement to motions for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) in
similar situations. See, e.g., Durham v. Superintendent Pittsburgh Sci, No. 16-3304, 2016 WL
9455895, at *1 (3d Cir. Nov. 17, 2016)(denying a certificate of appealability in a situation where
petitioner’s motion might have attacked “some defect in the integrity of the federal habeas
proceedings”); Kaplan v. United States, No. 07-329, 2016 WL 4086764, at *1 (D.N.J. July 28,
2016)(noting that the Third Circuit denied a certificate of appealability in a situation where
petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion “challenged the integrity of the habeas proceeding.”).

484 (2000). Here, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s earlier Opinion (ECF No. 59), jurists of
reason would not find it debatable that Petitioner has failed to set forth extraordinary circumstances
warranting relief under Rule 60(b)(6). Accordingly, the Court will not issue a certificate of
appealability.
THEREFORE, IT IS on this _8th _ day of July, 2019,
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall REOPEN this case for consideration of
Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability, (ECF No. 61); and it is further
ORDERED that Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability, (ECF No. 61), is
DENIED, and a certificate of appealability shall not issue; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall once again CLOSE this case; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Memorandum Opinion
and Order on Petitioner by regular U.S. mail.

s/Robert B. Kugler
ROBERT B. KUGLER
United States District Judge

2