United States v. Clifford Winkles
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13364
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- Clifford Marcus Winkles was convicted in federal court and sentenced to 476 months; his conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal.
- Winkles timely filed a § 2255 motion raising ineffective assistance and due process claims; the district court denied relief and Winkles did not receive notice of that denial in a timely fashion.
- Winkles later claimed he mailed an amended § 2255 motion in 2005 that the court never received; he filed multiple postjudgment motions (construed as Rule 60(b) motions) seeking relief and to have the amended petition considered.
- The district court denied Winkles’s Rule 60(b) motions; Winkles sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the denial and also petitioned this court over whether a COA is required to appeal a legitimate Rule 60(b) motion arising from a § 2255 proceeding.
- The Ninth Circuit panel held that (1) a COA is required to appeal the denial of a legitimate Rule 60(b) motion arising from a § 2255 proceeding, (2) the proper COA standard requires showing (a) debatable abuse of discretion in denying Rule 60(b) and (b) a debatable underlying constitutional claim, and (3) Winkles failed to make that showing; COA denied and appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a COA is required to appeal the denial of a legitimate Rule 60(b) motion arising from a § 2255 proceeding | Winkles: COA not required because § 2253(c) refers to the final order in a § 2255 proceeding (implying only the merits order needs a COA) and Harbison favors a narrow COA scope | Gov't: COA is required; precedent and statutory purpose support requiring COA for postjudgment orders disposing of habeas-related matters | COA required to appeal the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion in this context |
| Standard for granting a COA in this context | Winkles: (implicit) use ordinary COA standards for merits appeals | Gov't: Apply a Slack-derived test adapted to Rule 60(b): (1) debatable abuse of discretion in denying Rule 60(b), and (2) debatable underlying constitutional claim | Court adopts two-part test: jurists could debate (a) whether district court abused discretion in denying Rule 60(b) and (b) whether the underlying § 2255 raises a debatable constitutional claim |
| Whether district court abused its discretion by refusing to reopen the appeal period for the original § 2255 denial | Winkles: District court should have used Rule 60(b)(6) equitable power to vacate/reenter judgment and restart appeal time due to lack of notice | Gov't: Reopening is governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6); courts cannot use Rule 60(b) to evade the rule's limits; Stein and Bowles bar equitable bypass | Denial affirmed: no abuse of discretion; Rule 4(a)(6) and precedent preclude using Rule 60(b) to reopen time beyond limits |
| Whether district court abused its discretion by refusing to consider Winkles’s purported amended § 2255 motion | Winkles: He mailed an amended petition in 2005 and the court should have treated it as filed | Gov't: Record lacks reliable proof of mailing/date; Rule 3(d) requires a sworn declaration or mail logs to show timely prison mailing | Denial affirmed: Winkles failed to meet Rule 3(d) evidentiary requirements; jurists would not find it debatable that denial was an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (U.S. 1983) (discussing policy basis for appellate screening of habeas appeals)
- Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (U.S. 2005) (distinguishing true Rule 60(b) motions from second or successive habeas petitions)
- Harbison v. Bell, 556 U.S. 180 (U.S. 2009) (interpreting scope of COA requirement for collateral proceedings)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (U.S. 2000) (COA standard where district court denies habeas on procedural grounds)
- Lynch v. Blodgett, 999 F.2d 401 (9th Cir. 1993) (pre-AEDPA analogue: CPC required to appeal denial of Rule 60(b) in habeas)
- Langford v. Day, 134 F.3d 1381 (9th Cir. 1998) (stating COA required to appeal Rule 60(b) denial)
- In re Stein, 197 F.3d 421 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding Rule 4(a) and Rule 77(d) preclude using Rule 60(b) to reopen appeal time for notice problems)
- Mackey v. Hoffman, 682 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2012) (narrow exception allowing Rule 60(b)(6) where attorney abandonment—not mere lack of notice—caused the problem)
- Jones v. Ryan, 733 F.3d 825 (9th Cir. 2013) (discussing Rule 60(b) and COA interplay in habeas context)