Background
Terrell McCoy filed a petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. After the district court denied the petition, McCoy filed three motions seeking relief from that judgment under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b)(1), (3), (4), and (6).
The district court denied those motions, and McCoy appealed. He also moved in the Fourth Circuit for appointment of counsel and permission to file supplemental briefs.
The Court’s Holding
In an unpublished per curiam opinion, the Fourth Circuit held that McCoy could not appeal the denial of his post-judgment motions without a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). Such a certificate requires a substantial showing that the petitioner was denied a constitutional right.
After independently reviewing the record, the court concluded that McCoy had not made the required showing. It therefore denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal. The court also denied McCoy’s motions for appointment of counsel and permission to file supplemental briefs and concluded that oral argument would not aid the decisional process.
Key Takeaways
- An appeal from an order denying Rules 59(e) and 60(b) relief concerning a previously denied § 2254 petition requires a certificate of appealability.
- When relief was denied on the merits, the petitioner must show that reasonable jurists could debate the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims.
- When relief was denied on procedural grounds, the petitioner must show that both the procedural ruling and the underlying constitutional claim are debatable.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that a state prisoner generally cannot obtain appellate review of post-judgment rulings tied to a § 2254 proceeding without first satisfying the certificate-of-appealability standard. Recasting challenges through Rules 59(e) or 60(b) does not eliminate that threshold requirement.
The opinion is unpublished and therefore is not binding precedent in the Fourth Circuit.