Threadgill v. Washington State Penitentiary

Filing 33

ORDER ON LIMITED REMAND signed by Judge James L. Robart re 32 Order/ Referral Notice. The court DENIES a COA for all issues in its July 12, 2021 post-judgment order. **3 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Daniel Threadgill, Prisoner ID: 357673)(CDA)ad hoc 9th Circuit

Case 2:20-cv-00695-JLR Document 33 Filed 09/08/21 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

DANIEL THREADGILL,
Petitioner,

11

CASE NO. C20-0695JLR
ORDER ON LIMITED REMAND

v.
12
13

DONALD HOLBROOK,
Respondent.

14
15

This matter comes before the court on limited remand from the Ninth Circuit

16

Court of Appeals. (USCA Not. (Dkt. # 32).) The Ninth Circuit remanded this case for

17

the limited purpose of granting or denying a certification of appealability (“COA”) under

18

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) with respect to the court’s July 12, 2021 post-judgment order.

19

(USCA Not. at 2.)

20

On May 6, 2021, the court adopted Magistrate Judge Mary Alice Theiler’s Report

21

and Recommendation (“R&R”) and dismissed Petitioner Daniel Threadgill’s petition for

22

writ of habeas corpus, after Mr. Threadgill failed to file objections despite being granted

ORDER - 1

Case 2:20-cv-00695-JLR Document 33 Filed 09/08/21 Page 2 of 3

1

several extensions of time to do so. (See 5/6/21 Order (Dkt. # 21) (adopting R&R);

2

2/18/21 Order (Dkt. # 18) (granting extension until April 5, 2021 to file objections);

3

3/29/21 Order (Dkt. # 20) (granting extension until May 3, 2021 to file objections).)

4

More than a month later, on June 22, 2021, Mr. Threadgill filed a motion for relief from

5

judgment and belated objections to the R&R. (Mot. (Dkt. # 23); Obj. (Dkt. # 24).) The

6

court denied both filings on July 12, 2021. (7/12/21 Order (Dkt. # 25) at 1-2.)

7

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3), a COA may issue only where a petitioner has made

8

“a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3).

9

To satisfy this standard, the petitioner must show that reasonable jurists could disagree

10

with the district court’s resolution of his or her constitutional claims or that jurists could

11

agree the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.

12

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-85 (2000) (citing Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880,

13

893 n.4 (1983)). Under this standard, the court concludes that Mr. Threadgill is not

14

entitled to a COA with respect to the issues within the court’s July 12, 2021

15

post-judgment order. The issues are straightforward and did not warrant relief for the

16

reasons explained in that order. (See 7/12/21 Order at 2-5.) There is no room for

17

reasonable jurists to disagree about whether Mr. Threadgill established the necessary

18

extraordinary circumstances to justify the reopening of a final judgment under Rule

19

//

20

//

21

//

22

//

ORDER - 2

Case 2:20-cv-00695-JLR Document 33 Filed 09/08/21 Page 3 of 3

1

60(b)(6), or whether the objections were meritorious. Accordingly, the court DENIES a

2

COA for all issues in its July 12, 2021 post-judgment order.

3

Dated this 8th day of September, 2021.

4
5

A

6

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 3