Professional Documents
Culture Documents
3d 51
of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. On February 28, 2005, Jackson
filed a "motion to reargue rehear for release order." The district court
scrupulously classified the motion as one for reconsideration pursuant to Rule
59(e), and found that it was timely filed within ten days (net of weekends) of
the entry of judgment.1 The district court denied the motion by an order entered
March 28, 2005, and declined to issue a COA. On the same day that the district
court entered the order denying the motion for reconsideration, Jackson filed a
notice of appeal from the district court's February 7, 2005, judgment dismissing
his amended 2254 petition.
3
Jackson moved in this Court for COAs on both the denial of his Rule 59(e)
motion and the denial of his 2254 petition (and for status in forma pauperis).
II
4
As to Jackson's motion for a COA from the denial of his 2254 petition, "[a
COA] may issue . . . only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2); see Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). "We
review de novo the denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus brought
under . . . 2254." Chalmers v. Mitchell, 73 F.3d 1262, 1266 (2d Cir.1996).
The amended petitionfiled after the district court explained to Jackson the
defects in his original petitionwas found to be unintelligible, a finding
confirmed by our examination of the text. Jackson's amended petition was
therefore properly dismissed pursuant to Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases.
These rationales apply with equal force to Rule 59(e) motions. We therefore
only if the petitioner shows that (1) jurists of reason would find it debatable
whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the Rule [59(e)]
motion, and (2) jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the underlying
habeas petition, in light of the grounds alleged to support the [Rule 59(e)]
motion, states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right.
See id. at 104 (setting standard for COAs in Rule 60(b) cases); see also Munafo
v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 381 F.3d 99, 105 (2d Cir.2004). Jackson's motion, like
his petition, remains incomprehensible even after a fair effort to discover what
is on his mind. Further, the COA motion fails even to mention the dismissal of
Jackson's 2254 petition. Because Jackson has failed to make a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right, see 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2), we
decline to issue a COA for both the appeal from the judgment denying the
2254 petition and the order denying the Rule 59(e) motion, and we dismiss the
appeals.
Notes:
1
Since 2254 and 28 U.S.C. 2255 "are generally seen asin pari materia," the
reasoning of cases in the context of 2254 petitions applies equally to 2255
petitions. Kellogg v. Strack, 269 F.3d 100, 103 n. 3 (2d Cir.2001) (quoting
Fama v. Comm'r of Correctional Servs., 235 F.3d 804, 815-16 (2d Cir.2000).