Hugueley v. Bell

Filing 145

AMENDMENT TO ORDER DENYING PETITION, ORDER DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AND CERTIFYING THAT AN APPEAL WOULD NOT BE TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH. Signed by Judge J. Daniel Breen on 8/9/17. (Breen, J.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN DIVISION

STEPHEN HUGUELEY,
Petitioner,
vs.
BRUCE WESTBROOKS, Warden,
Riverbend Maximum Security
Institution,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 09-1181-JDB-egb

AMENDMENT TO ORDER DENYING PETITION,
ORDER DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
AND
CERTIFYING THAT AN APPEAL WOULD NOT BE TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a), the Court amends its Order dated
August 3, 2017 (ECF No. 144), to address the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in
Davila v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 2058 (2017). In Claim L, Petitioner, Stephen Hugueley, alleged
ineffective assistance of appellate counsel and argued that he could overcome the procedural
default of this claim, relying on Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012). (See ECF No. 144 at
PageID 7835-36.) The Court denied the claim as procedurally defaulted in accordance with
Sixth Circuit precedent in Hodges v. Colson, 727 F.3d 517, 531 (6th Cir. 2013). (Id. at PageID
7836.) However, the Court amends its Order to state that Claim L still should be dismissed as
procedurally defaulted because Davila resolved a circuit split and, like the Sixth Circuit, declined
to extend the equitable exception in Martinez to ineffective assistance of appellate counsel
claims. Davila, 137 S. Ct. at 2070 (“[W]e do not think equity requires an expansion of the
Martinez.”). All other issues addressed in the Order denying the petition shall remain as stated.

In its original Order, the Court granted a limited certificate of appealability for Claim L.
(ECF No. 144 at PageID 7837.) As the issue raised in Davila has been resolved, the Court
denies the certificate of appealability for Claim L and the remaining claims in Hugueley’s
petition and certifies that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.1
IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of August 2017.
s/ J. DANIEL BREEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

If Petitioner files a notice of appeal, he must pay the full $505 appellate filing fee or file
a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and supporting affidavit in the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals within 30 days of the date of entry of this order. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5).