906 F.3d 812
9th Cir.2018Background
- William Payton was convicted in 1981 of rape and murder and sentenced to death; conviction relied on eyewitness, forensic evidence, and jailhouse informant testimony (Alejandro Garcia, Daniel Escalera).
- Over decades Payton pursued state and federal habeas relief under AEDPA; courts repeatedly rejected Brady/Massiah/informant-based claims, finding informant testimony cumulative and not material given overwhelming evidence of guilt.
- Newer material introduced (Dekraai proceedings, correspondence, alleged informant database) led Payton to file a Rule 60(d)(3) motion in federal district court alleging fraud on the court by prosecutor Michael Jacobs and a larger OCDA/OCSD scheme to conceal informant information.
- The district court denied the Rule 60(d) motion and declined to grant a certificate of appealability (COA); Payton appealed and requested a COA.
- The Ninth Circuit addressed two threshold questions: (1) whether a COA is required to appeal denial of a Rule 60(d) motion in a §2254 context, and (2) whether Payton merits a COA on his fraud-on-the-court claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a COA is required to appeal denial of a Rule 60(d) motion in a §2254 case | Payton suggested Rule 60(d) might be exempt from COA requirement | State: COA requirement applies to Rule 60(d) appeals | COA is required for Rule 60(d) appeals in §2254 cases |
| Whether Payton is entitled to a COA to appeal denial of his Rule 60(d) fraud-on-the-court claim | Payton: new evidence shows prosecutor lied/withheld informant data; jurists could debate procedural ruling and merits | State: issues are not material; prior precedents already hold informant evidence was not outcome-determinative | COA denied; no reasonable jurist would debate district court discretion given prior holdings on materiality |
| Whether fraud-on-the-court can be established by reckless conduct or whether prosecutor’s sworn statements in habeas can constitute fraud on the court | Payton: recklessness and sworn habeas statements can support fraud-on-the-court | State: law does not support Payton’s expansive view; disputed legal standards | Court treated the legal question as potentially debatable but resolved appealability based on lack of prejudice/materiality |
| Whether new evidence (Dekraai rulings, correspondence, alleged database) renders informant testimony material such that relief is warranted | Payton: new evidence shows concealment, undermining informant credibility and materiality | State: even if misconduct occurred, informant testimony was cumulative to overwhelming independent evidence | Court: even assuming misconduct, no reasonable probability of a different outcome; prior precedent binds result |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (COA prerequisite and AEDPA gatekeeping)
- Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (limitations on Rule 60 motions in habeas context)
- Winkles v. United States, 795 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir.) (COA required to appeal denial of Rule 60(b); reasoning extended to Rule 60(d))
- Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759 (COA procedure and caution against merits-first denials)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (two-part COA standard when dismissal is on procedural grounds)