Threadgill v. Washington State Penitentiary

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 10 DANIEL THREADGILL, CASE NO. C20-0695JLR 11 Petitioner, ORDER ON LIMITED REMAND v. DONALD HOLBROOK, Respondent.

15 This matter comes before the court on limited remand from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (USCA Not. (Dkt. # 32).) The Ninth Circuit remanded this case for the limited purpose of granting or denying a certification of appealability (“COA”) under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) with respect to the court’s July 12, 2021 post-judgment order.

19 (USCA Not. at 2.)

20 On May 6, 2021, the court adopted Magistrate Judge Mary Alice Theiler’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) and dismissed Petitioner Daniel Threadgill’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, after Mr. Threadgill failed to file objections despite being granted several extensions of time to do so. (See 5/6/21 Order (Dkt. # 21) (adopting R&R); 2/18/21 Order (Dkt. # 18) (granting extension until April 5, 2021 to file objections); 3/29/21 Order (Dkt. # 20) (granting extension until May 3, 2021 to file objections).)

4 More than a month later, on June 22, 2021, Mr. Threadgill filed a motion for relief from judgment and belated objections to the R&R. (Mot. (Dkt. # 23); Obj. (Dkt. # 24).) The court denied both filings on July 12, 2021. (7/12/21 Order (Dkt. # 25) at 1-2.)

7 Under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3), a COA may issue only where a petitioner has made “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3).

9 To satisfy this standard, the petitioner must show that reasonable jurists could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his or her constitutional claims or that jurists could agree the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.

12 Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-85 (2000) (citing Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 (1983)). Under this standard, the court concludes that Mr. Threadgill is not entitled to a COA with respect to the issues within the court’s July 12, 2021 post-judgment order. The issues are straightforward and did not warrant relief for the reasons explained in that order. (See 7/12/21 Order at 2-5.) There is no room for reasonable jurists to disagree about whether Mr. Threadgill established the necessary extraordinary circumstances to justify the reopening of a final judgment under Rule // // // // 60(b)(6), or whether the objections were meritorious. Accordingly, the court DENIES a COA for all issues in its July 12, 2021 post-judgment order.

3 Dated this 8th day of September, 2021.

A 6 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge