From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Henley v. Bell

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Feb 2, 2009
308 F. App'x 989 (6th Cir. 2009)

Summary

holding a prisoner must show that "reasonable jurists could disagree with the district court's resolution of his constitutional claims or that the issues presented warrant encouragement to proceed further" (quoting Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668, 674 (2004))

Summary of this case from Hall v. Bonner

Opinion

No. 09-5085.

February 2, 2009.

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.

BEFORE: SILER, COLE, and COOK, Circuit Judges.


Petitioner Steve Henley moves this Court to declare a certificate of appealability ("COA") unnecessary to appeal the denial of a motion made under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or in the alternative, to grant a certificate of appealability. He also moves for a stay of his execution, scheduled for February 4, 2009, pending the disposition of his Rule 60 claim. We hold that a COA is necessary to appeal the denial of his Rule 60 motion, refuse to issue one, and dismiss his motion for stay of execution as moot.

In United States v. Hardin, 481 F.3d 924, 926 (6th Cir. 2007), we held that a COA is required to appeal the denial of a Rule 60 motion in a habeas corpus proceeding. That holding governs Henley's current claim; he may not appeal denial of his Rule 60 motion without a certificate of appealability.

In the alternative, Henley petitions this Court to issue a COA. "To obtain a certificate of appealability, a prisoner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists could disagree with the district court's resolution of his constitutional claims or that the issues presented warrant encouragement to proceed further." Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668, 674, 124 S.Ct. 1256, 157 L.Ed.2d 1166 (2004). Having reviewed the parties' briefs and the district court's opinion, we conclude that Henley has not met this standard. Consequently, we decline to issue a COA for the reasons expressed in the district court's well-reasoned opinion of January 29, 2009, 2009 WL 230574.

Because we decline to issue a certificate of appealability, we also dismiss as moot Henley's motion to stay his execution pending the disposition of this case.


Summaries of

Henley v. Bell

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Feb 2, 2009
308 F. App'x 989 (6th Cir. 2009)

holding a prisoner must show that "reasonable jurists could disagree with the district court's resolution of his constitutional claims or that the issues presented warrant encouragement to proceed further" (quoting Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668, 674 (2004))

Summary of this case from Hall v. Bonner

holding a prisoner must show that "reasonable jurists could disagree with the district court's resolution of his constitutional claims or that the issues presented warrant encouragement to proceed further" (quoting Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668, 674 (2004))

Summary of this case from Price v. Tenn. Bd. of Paroles

holding a prisoner must show that reasonable jurists could disagree with the district court's resolution of his constitutional claims or that the issues presented warrant encouragement to proceed even more

Summary of this case from Bates v. Settles

holding a prisoner must show that "reasonable jurists could disagree with the district court's resolution of his constitutional claims or that the issues presented warrant encouragement to proceed further" (quoting Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668, 674 (2004))

Summary of this case from Tolliver v. Tennessee

holding a prisoner must show that reasonable jurists could disagree with the district court's resolution of his constitutional claims or that the issues presented warrant encouragement to proceed more

Summary of this case from Bledsoe v. Lindamood

holding prisoner must show reasonable jurists could disagree with the district court's resolution of constitutional claims

Summary of this case from Bibbs v. Bonner

holding a prisoner must show that reasonable jurists could disagree with the district court's resolution of his constitutional claims or that the issues presented warrant encouragement to proceed even more

Summary of this case from Hubbard v. Lebo

holding a prisoner must show that reasonable jurists could disagree with the district court's resolution of his constitutional claims or that the issues presented warrant encouragement to proceed any more

Summary of this case from Delk v. Perry

holding a prisoner must show that reasonable jurists could disagree with the district court's resolution of his constitutional claims or that the issues presented warrant encouragement to proceed more

Summary of this case from Speed v. Genovese

holding a prisoner must show that reasonable jurists could disagree with the district court's resolution of his constitutional claims or that the issues presented warrant encouragement to proceed more

Summary of this case from Smith v. Lindamood

holding a prisoner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists could disagree with the district court's resolution of his constitutional claims or that the issues presented warrant encouragement to proceed further

Summary of this case from Delk v. Perry

holding a prisoner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists could disagree with the district court's resolution of his constitutional claims or that the issues presented warrant encouragement to proceed further

Summary of this case from Davis v. Standard Ins. Co.

holding a prisoner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists could disagree with the district court's resolution of his constitutional claims or that the issues presented warrant encouragement to proceed further

Summary of this case from Hall v. Parris

holding a prisoner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists could disagree with the district court's resolution of his constitutional claims or that the issues presented warrant encouragement to proceed even more

Summary of this case from Nur v. Crowell

holding a prisoner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists could disagree with the district court's resolution of his constitutional claims or that the issues presented warrant encouragement to proceed further

Summary of this case from Davis v. Cooper
Case details for

Henley v. Bell

Case Details

Full title:Steve HENLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ricky BELL, Warden…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

Date published: Feb 2, 2009

Citations

308 F. App'x 989 (6th Cir. 2009)

Citing Cases

Young v. United States

28 U.S.C. §§ 2253(c)(2) & (3). Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (internal quotation marks and…

Wright v. United States

28 U.S.C. §§ 2253(c)(2) & (3). Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (internal quotation marks and…