Wilson v. Neuschmid
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:18-cv-06744
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Wilson v. Neuschmid, Judge Rogers denied Wilson a certificate of appealability because he did not make the required substantial showing.
Anthony Rosier Wilson’s ability to appeal the dismissal of his federal habeas petition was affected; Robert Neuschmid remained the respondent.
What happened
Wilson v. Neuschmid began when Wilson filed a petition challenging his custody under a federal law allowing prisoners to seek review of certain constitutional claims.
The court had previously granted Neuschmid’s request to dismiss the petition, finding that it was filed too late, barred by procedural rules, and did not state a valid claim. Wilson appealed, and the Ninth Circuit sent the case back so this court could decide whether to issue a certificate of appealability, which is permission to appeal a habeas decision.
Judge Rogers denied Wilson’s request because he had not substantially shown that a constitutional right was denied or that reasonable judges could disagree with the court’s assessment. Wilson may ask the Ninth Circuit for a certificate of appealability.
The detailed version
- Wilson v. Neuschmid · No. 4:18-cv-06744
- Yvonne Rogers
- May 15, 2020
Background
On June 20, 2018, Anthony Rosier Wilson filed a petition for federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On April 3, 2020, the court granted Robert Neuschmid’s motion to dismiss the petition. Wilson filed a notice of appeal on May 1, 2020. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case for the limited purpose of deciding whether to grant or deny a certificate of appealability.
Court’s Analysis
A certificate of appealability is required to appeal the denial or dismissal of a federal habeas petition. The court denied Wilson’s request because he had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The court also stated that reasonable judges would not find its assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.
The court reiterated that it had dismissed the petition after considering the motion and a 2016 declaration from Juwan Veal. It had concluded that the petition was untimely, procedurally defaulted, and failed to state a claim. The court further found that Wilson did not allege a constitutional error at his trial apart from the newly discovered evidence. Instead, his claim rested only on actual innocence, which the court found he had not demonstrated.
Disposition
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denied Wilson’s request for a certificate of appealability. The court stated that Wilson may seek a certificate from the Ninth Circuit and ordered the Clerk to forward the case record and the order to that court.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.