Turner v. Dragovich ( 2006 )

Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
1-5-2006
Turner v. Dragovich
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 04-3681
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"Turner v. Dragovich" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1789.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1789
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 04-3681
________________
WILLIAM D. TURNER,
Appellant
v.
MARTIN L. DRAGOVICH; THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY
OF THE COUNTY OF PHILA. MS. LYNNE ABRAHAM;
ATTY GEN PA, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
THE STATE OF PENN. *MR. GERALD J. PAPPERT
*Pursuant to F.R.A.P. 43(c)
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 99-cv-03975)
Chief District Judge: Honorable James T. Giles
__________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
December 15, 2005
Before: McKEE, FUENTES and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges
(Filed January 5, 2006)
_________________
OPINION
_________________
PER CURIAM
Appellant William D. Turner was convicted in 1981 of first degree murder and
possession of an instrument of crime, and sentenced to life in prison on the murder charge
plus an additional 2½-5 years imprisonment for the weapons offense. Turner’s direct
appeal was completed in 1983. It was followed by four separate state petitions for post-
conviction relief. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied Turner’s request for
allowance of appeal from the denial of his third petition on April 8, 1997. Turner’s fourth
state post-conviction petition was denied as untimely.1
Turner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in August 1999. The
District Court dismissed the petition as untimely in July 2000, concluding that the one
year limitation period was not tolled while the untimely fourth state petition was pending.
That petition was not a “properly filed” petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). In April
2002, we affirmed in Turner v. Dragovitch, C.A. No. 00-2348, pursuant to Artuz v.
Bennett, 531 U.S. 4 (2000). In Artuz, the United States Supreme Court held that an
application that contains procedurally barred claims is still properly filed “when its
delivery and acceptance are in compliance with the applicable laws and rules governing
filings,” including the time limits for filing. Id. at 8. The U.S. Supreme Court denied
Turner’s petition for a writ of certiorari.
In December 2003, Turner filed a Rule 60(b) motion under subparagraphs (1) and
1
As we write primarily for the parties, and the District Court’s recitation of the
procedural history was thorough, we provide only this brief summary.
2
(3), challenging the integrity of the habeas proceedings, and claiming a violation of due
process because his claim of actual innocence was ignored. He did not directly challenge
his conviction and sentence. In an order entered on August 9, 2004, the District Court
held that it could not consider the Rule 60(b) motion on the merits, because it was
untimely. It was filed more than 3 years after the habeas proceedings had concluded in
the district court. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 60(b) (one year time limit for motions under
subparagraphs (1), (2), and (3)). The court went on to conclude that, in any event, Turner
had failed to demonstrate that there had been any mistake or fraud in the habeas
proceedings, or that exceptional circumstances justified reopening the judgment. A
timely motion for reconsideration was denied, and Turner appealed.
Thereafter, the District Court granted a certificate of appealability with respect to
its construction of Rule 60(b). We appointed counsel, but counsel now seeks to withdraw
from this appeal on the ground that there are no non-frivolous arguments to be made on
Turner's behalf, and she has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738(1967). Appointment of counsel in a habeas proceeding is not constitutionally mandated,
however, and, accordingly, a motion to withdraw comporting with the requirements of
Anders is not necessary. See Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 559 (1987). See also
18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(1). Nevertheless, we notified Turner of his counsel's motion and
gave him an opportunity to respond, which he did, and his response includes a motion for
appointment of new counsel. Having independently reviewed the Anders brief, Turner’s
3
response and the entire record, we are satisfied that there is no basis for collateral relief in
this case, and thus grant counsel's motion and affirm. Turner’s motion for appointment of
new counsel is denied.2
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Turner contends in his pro se
brief that the certificate of appealability was appropriately granted, because there were
Sixth Amendment violations at his trial, including trial counsel’s ineffective handling of
the Commonwealth’s use of false evidence to vouch for the credibility of its key witness.3
In addition, the original judgment that his habeas petition was untimely is null and void
under Gonzalez v. Crosby, 125 S. Ct. 2641 (U.S. 2005), a case decided after the District
Court granted the certificate of appealability.
Appointed counsel argued in the Anders brief that reasonable jurists could not
disagree, Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 338 (2003), that the Rule 60(b) motion was
untimely. We agree with Turner, however, that the certificate of appealability was not
improvidently granted. The questions raised by Rule 60(b) motions filed in the context of
habeas proceedings were substantial and unresolved when the District Court ruled on
Turner’s Rule 60(b) motion. After the District Court ruled, we decided Pridgen v.
Shannon, 380 F.3d 721, 727 (3d Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 1298 (2005), holding
that a Rule 60(b) motion may be adjudicated on the merits when the factual predicate of
2
Turner has demonstrated that he is capable of, and desires to, argue his own case.
3
Turner alleged that eyewitness Ella Martin lied about her employment at Horizon
House, and thus was not a credible witness in any respect.
4
the motion attacks the manner in which an earlier habeas judgment was procured, and not
the underlying conviction. Prior to Pridgen, that issue was unresolved in this circuit.
Although the issue in Turner’s case was whether, if properly construed as a true
Rule 60(b) motion, Turner’s December 2003 filing was untimely, the question of the
proper construction of his filing, that is, whether it was an impermissible successive
habeas petition, was at issue. Because there was a substantial procedural issue decided
adversely to Turner, and the case involved a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional
right, Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000), the District Court did not err in
granting the certificate of appealability.
We nonetheless affirm. The District Court properly construed the motion as
arising under Rule 60(b). In Gonzalez v. Crosby, 125 S. Ct. 2641, the Supreme Court
held that a motion for relief from judgment, such as Turner’s, which challenges only the
District Court’s prior ruling that the habeas petition was time-barred, is not the equivalent
of a second or successive habeas petition, and may be considered under Rule 60(b). Id. at
2648.4 This necessarily means that the time requirements of the rule apply. Id. at 2649.
Rule 60(b) provides in pertinent part, that: “On motion and upon such terms as are
just, the court may relieve a party ... from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the
following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; ... [or] (3)
4
The Supreme Court, while leaving the issue open, did not disapprove of the practice
of requiring a certificate of appealability as a prerequisite to appealing the denial of a
Rule 60(b) motion, calling it a “plausible and effective screening requirement.” 125 S.
Ct. at 2650 n.7.
5
fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other
misconduct of an adverse party.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 60(b). The rule further provides that:
“The motion shall be made ... for reasons (1) [and] (3) not more than one year after the
judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken.” Id. Turner’s Rule 60(b) motion,
insofar as he sought to bring it under subparagraphs (1) and (3), was plainly out of time,
as explained by the District Court.
Moreover, the District Court did not err in concluding that no extraordinary
circumstances existed for reopening Turner’s habeas case. We previously decided that,
under Artuz, Turner’s habeas petition was untimely. Even if this ruling had been
incorrect (and it was not, see Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 125 S. Ct. 1807, 1814 (U.S. 2005)), a
motion under Rule 60(b)(6) can only be granted in extraordinary circumstances. In
Gonzalez, the Supreme Court considered whether its decision in Artuz, even assuming
that it rendered the district court’s previous untimeliness ruling incorrect, was not an
extraordinary circumstance justifying reopening the habeas judgment. Artuz does not
justify “reopening long-ago dismissals based on a lower court’s unduly parsimonious
interpretation of § 2244(d)(2)....” Gonzalez, 125 S. Ct. at 2650.
The Supreme Court further reasoned that the petitioner’s lack of diligence in
pursuing his statute of limitations argument was a contributing factor in determining
whether extraordinary circumstances existed. Id. at 2651. Here, Turner’s lack of
diligence in pursuing his innocence argument similarly renders his case “all the less
6
extraordinary.” Id. Furthermore, even if a showing of actual innocence could trigger
equitable tolling, Turner would have to support his allegations with new reliable and
probative evidence that was not presented at trial. Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 327
(1995). His unsupported statement fails to satisfy this standard, further establishing an
absence of extraordinary circumstances.
We will grant counsel's motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of the District
Court. Turner’s motion for appointment of new counsel is denied.