Shields v. United States ( 2020 )

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 SAN JOSE DIVISION 5 6 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 12-cr-00410-BLF-1 Case No. 17-cv-03978-BLF 7 Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY RE ORDER 9 MELVIN RUSSELL “RUSTY” SHIELDS, DENYING DEFENDANT SHIELDS’ RULE 59(e) MOTION 10 Defendant. [Re: ECF 552] 11 12 13 On January 21, 2020, this Court denied Defendant Melvin Russell “Rusty” Shields’ motion 14 for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and his request for an evidentiary hearing on that motion. See 15 Order Denying § 2255 Motion, ECF 545.1 The Court denied a certificate of appealability. See id. 16 Judgment was entered on January 21, 2020. See Judgment, ECF 546. 17 Shields thereafter filed both a notice of appeal and a motion for reconsideration under 18 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). See Notice of Appeal, ECF 549; Rule 59(e) Motion, ECF 19 551. On March 12, 2020, this Court denied the Rule 59(e) motion after determining that the 20 motion was untimely and that this Court lacked authority to deem the motion timely as requested 21 by Shields. See Order Denying Rule 59(e) Motion, ECF 552. On April 13, 2020, the United 22 States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an order remanding the case to this Court for 23 the limited purpose of either granting or denying a certificate of appealability with respect to the 24 order denying Shields’ Rule 59(e) Motion. The Court of Appeals’ remand order was entered on 25 the district court docket on April 20, 2020. 26 27 1 The documents referenced herein were filed in both Shields’ criminal case and his parallel civil 1 “A certificate of appealability may issue... only if the applicant has made a substantial 2 showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This standard is satisfied 3 || if “jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of [the] constitutional 4 || claims” or “conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed 5 further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 6 484 (2000)). Under this standard, the Court concludes that Shields is not entitled to a certificate of 7 appealability. No reasonable jurist would find debatable the untimeliness of Shield’s Rule 59(e) 8 || motion. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 || Dated: April 20, 2020 | Gy han en BETH LABSON FREEMAN 13 United States District Judge 15 16 («17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28