Payton v. Davis, No. 17-55054 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d) is subject to the certificate of appealability requirement in 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1). The Ninth Circuit denied petitioner's request for a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court's denial of his motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(3). Petitioner alleged that the district attorney who secured his conviction and death sentence made false sworn statements during the federal habeas proceedings, and that these statements were part of a larger scheme involving assignment of inmate informants to cells next to defendants incarcerated in Orange County, California, in hopes of obtaining incriminating admissions. The panel held that, although a COA was required in this case, petitioner was not entitled to one because regardless of how the prosecution obtained the informants' testimony or later explained its tactics to the district court, the evidence itself was not material to petitioner's conviction and sentence.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. The panel denied California state prisoner William Charles Payton’s request for a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(3), alleging fraud on the court and seeking relief from the court’s prior order denying habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Payton argued that the district attorney who secured his conviction and death sentence made false sworn statements during the federal habeas proceedings, and that these statements were part of a larger scheme involving assignment of inmate informants to cells next to defendants incarcerated in Orange County, California, in hopes of obtaining incriminating admissions. The panel held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d), like Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), is subject to the requirement in 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) for a certificate of appealability. The panel held that Payton is not entitled to a certificate of appealability because it is beyond debate that, regardless of how the prosecution obtained the informants’ testimony or later explained its tactics to the district court, the informants’ testimony was not material in light of the overwhelming evidence of Payton’s guilt.
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.