Hamilton v. Secretary, FL DOC, No. 14-13535 (11th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Petitioner, a death row inmate, filed a motion for a certificate of appealability (COA), arguing that jurists of reason could debate whether the district court properly denied the motions he
filed under Rules 60(b) and 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner contended that, based on intervening decisions by the Supreme Court and this court, petitioner should be able to revive the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim that he procedurally defaulted in his state post-conviction proceedings. The court rejected petitioner's arguments that no COA is required and concluded that petitioner has not made the required showing for an issuance of a COA on any of petitioner's issues. The court concluded that Martinez v. Ryan did not permit him to raise his procedurally defaulted ineffective-assistance claims where Arthur v. Thomas foreclosed such an argument. Because any relief for petitioner is ultimately predicated on his ability to raise his admittedly defaulted ineffective-assistance claims, and Arthur squarely forecloses that possibility, his allegations cannot entitle him to relief. So the correctness of the denial of an evidentiary hearing is not debatable among reasonable jurists. Finally, the denial of that Rule 59(e) motion is not debatable among reasonable jurists. Accordingly, the court denied the application for a COA.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.