Richard Hamilton v. Secretary, Florida department of Corrections, 793 F.3d 1261

Hamilton, a Florida death-row inmate, sought a certificate of appealability to challenge the district court’s disposition of his habeas petition and related Rule 60(b) and Rule 59(e) motions.
The district court initially dismissed his 2008 §2254 petition as untimely under 28 U.S.C. §2244(d); this court affirmed in 2010.
In 2013 Hamilton moved to reopen under Rule 60(b) to revive the procedurally defaulted ineffective-assistance claim based on Martinez v. Ryan and alleged trial/post-conviction counsels’ failures.
He separately argued under Rule 59(e) that Cadet v. Florida Department of Corrections and Maples v. Thomas support tolling due to attorney abandonment; the district court denied these motions and a COA.
Hamilton sought review in this court; we ordered briefing on three questions concerning COA necessity, and the district court’s Rule 60(b) and Rule 59(e) rulings.
We ultimately denied Hamilton’s application for a COA.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is a COA required to appeal the denial of a Rule 60(b) or Rule 59(e) motion in a §2254 case?	Hamilton argues COA is not required per Gonzalez/Harbison.	Hamilton is bound by circuit precedent holding COA is required.	COA is required to appeal such denials.
Does Martinez permit reopening of procedurally defaulted claims via Rule 60(b)(6)?	Hamilton contends Martinez creates an extraordinary circumstance to reopen.	Arthur forecloses Martinez-based reopening as extraordinary under Rule 60(b)(6).	Martinez-based reopening is foreclosed; no COA.
Was the district court correct to deny an evidentiary hearing and to deny the Rule 59(e) motion raising attorney-abandonment?	Hamilton contends abandonment and evidentiary need justify relief.	Under applicable law, no evidentiary hearing warranted; Rule 59(e) cannot relitigate issues; abandonment argument foreclosed by Maples.	Evidentiary hearing not warranted; Rule 59(e) denial not debatable; abandonment claim not colorable.

Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005) (COA issue discussed; decision not to decide controversy, dictum supports COA for Rule 60(b) appeals)
Harbison v. Bell, 556 U.S. 180 (2009) (COA not applicable to certain counsel-substitution appeals; disputed scope clarified by later precedent)
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (COA required for procedural-denial appeals in habeas cases)
Griffin v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 787 F.3d 1086 (11th Cir. 2015) (binds that COA is needed for Rule 60(b)(5) denials in habeas)
Williams v. Chatman, 510 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 2007) (confirms COA requirement after Gonzalez)
Jackson v. Crosby, 437 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 2006) (same COA requirement for Rule 60(b) denials)
Perez v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 711 F.3d 1263 (11th Cir. 2013) (COA required for Rule 59(e) decisions in habeas)
Maples v. Thomas, 132 S. Ct. 912 (2012) (attorney abandonment and tolling considerations)
Cadet v. Florida Dep’t of Corr., 742 F.3d 473 (11th Cir. 2014) (clarified attorney abandonment can toll AEDPA in some contexts)
Arthur v. Thomas, 739 F.3d 611 (11th Cir. 2014) (Martinez rule not an extraordinary circumstance for Rule 60(b)(6))
Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir. 2007) (Rule 59(e) standards for altering judgments)