Jones v. Estep , 634 F. App'x 672 ( 2016 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT February 8, 2016
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
WENDELL TODD JONES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v. No. 15-1414
(D.C. No. 1:05-CV-00353-LTB-PAC)
AL ESTEP; THE ATTORNEY (D. Colo.)
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
COLORADO,
Respondents - Appellees.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*
Before BRISCOE, HARTZ, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
In 1989, a Colorado jury found Wendell Todd Jones guilty of several serious
crimes, including two counts of first-degree murder. We upheld the denial of his first
habeas petition challenging that state conviction in Jones v. Estep, 219 F. App’x 723,
725 (10th Cir. 2007). More than eight years later, he filed a “Motion to Set Aside,
Vacate, Judgment,” attacking the same conviction on the basis of the State’s alleged
suppression of (unspecified) evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S.
83, 87 (1963). See R. Vol. 1 at 7. He purported to file the motion in his former
*
This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the
case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its
persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
habeas case. Noting the latter procedural fact, the district court summarily denied the
motion as improperly filed in a case long since finally closed. Following the ensuing
denial of related motions for reconsideration,1 appointment of counsel, and recusal
for the same reason, Mr. Jones commenced this appeal. The district court denied his
requests for a certificate of appealability (COA) and leave to proceed on appeal in
forma pauperis (IFP), which he has renewed before this court. Concluding this
appeal to be legally frivolous, we deny a COA, deny IFP, and dismiss.
The motion to set aside/vacate judgment filed by Mr. Jones actually had two
fatal threshold procedural deficiencies. First, as the district court noted, it was filed
in a closed case. And we note it advanced no reason justifying relief from the final
judgment entered in that case years ago. See generally Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4)-(6)
(specifying limited grounds for which relief from judgment may be obtained more
than a year after entry). Second, even if Mr. Jones had brought the motion as a new
stand-alone habeas proceeding challenging his state court conviction, it would have
been subject to summary dismissal as a second or successive petition lacking
authorization from this court under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). Nothing Mr. Jones argues
in his brief on appeal (designated as “Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit”) raises a nonfrivolous issue—much
1
In his motion for reconsideration, Mr. Jones added numerous conclusory
references to ineffective assistance of state trial counsel. His briefing to this court
invokes even more constitutional objections directed at his state prosecution. The
addition of these matters to the Brady claim he initially asserted does not affect the
grounds for our disposition.
-2-
less a debatable question warranting a COA—regarding the district court’s summary
rejection of his motion to set aside/vacate judgment and the similarly inappropriate
motions that followed. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (explaining
COA may issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) only if prisoner demonstrates that
reasonable jurists would find district court’s disposition debatable or wrong).
Accordingly, we deny a COA and dismiss this appeal from the district court’s
denial of Mr. Jones’ defective motion to set aside/vacate.2 In light of the legally
frivolous nature of this appeal, we also deny his motion to proceed IFP. See Watkins
v. Leyba, 543 F.3d 624, 627 (10th Cir. 2008). He is required to immediately remit
the full amount of the filing fee notwithstanding the denial of a COA. See Clark v.
Oklahoma, 468 F.3d 711, 715 (10th Cir. 2006).
Entered for the Court
ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk
2
In Harbison v. Bell, 556 U.S. 180, 183 (2009), the Supreme Court held that
procedural orders relating to appointment of counsel fall outside the statutory
requirement for a COA, which applies only to orders disposing of “the merits of a
habeas corpus proceeding.” It thus appears Mr. Jones does not need a COA to appeal
the denial of his collateral procedural motions involving appointment of counsel and
recusal. But given the patent deficiency of his underlying motion to set aside/vacate,
we affirm the denial of such collateral motions without the need to order the State to
file an answer brief.
-3-