History
  • No items yet
midpage
Tiffany Woods v. James Rogers, Warden
670 F. App'x 263
| 5th Cir. | 2016
|
Check Treatment
|
Docket
Case Information

*1 Before SMITH, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: [*]

Tiffany Woods, Louisiana prisoner # 545546, was convicted of the *2 Case: 15-31057 Document: 00513740930 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/31/2016

No. 15-31057

second-degree murder of her five-month-old child and sentenced to a manda- tory term of life. On November 9, 2015, she filed a motion for leave to file a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion seeking relief from the dismissal of her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application. The district court denied the motion for leave to file and Woods’s request for Rule 60(b) relief. Woods moves for a certif- icate of appealability (“COA”) to appeal the denial of her proposed Rule 60(b) motion.

A COA is required to appeal the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion except where the motion seeks to reinstate appellate jurisdiction over the initial denial of habeas corpus relief. Ochoa Canales v. Quarterman , 507 F.3d 884, 888 (5th Cir. 2007). A COA is also required to appeal the denial of an unauthorized successive § 2254 application. Cardenas v. Thaler , 651 F.3d 442, 443 (5th Cir. 2011).

The district court did not determine whether Woods was entitled to a COA. Because of that, we assume, without deciding, that we lack jurisdiction over the appeal. See Rule 11(a), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; Cardenas , 651 F.3d at 444 & nn.1–2. Nevertheless, we decline to remand for a ruling on a COA, because a remand would be futile. See United States v. Alvarez , 210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir. 2000). Woods’s proposed Rule 60(b) motion was an unauthorized successive § 2254 application. See Gonzalez v. Crosby , 545 U.S. 524, 531-32 (2005). Because the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider it, we lack jurisdiction to review the denial of Woods’s proposed Rule 60(b) motion on the merits. See United States v. Key , 205 F.3d 773, 774–75 (5th Cir. 2000).

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction, and the motion for a COA is DENIED as moot.

2

[*] Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

Case Details

Case Name: Tiffany Woods v. James Rogers, Warden
Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Date Published: Oct 31, 2016
Citation: 670 F. App'x 263
Docket Number: 15-31057
Court Abbreviation: 5th Cir.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.