Markham v. Janssen

Background

Oji Konata Markham filed this action against Vicki Janssen on December 18, 2019. On February 18, 2021, the court denied Markham’s habeas petition, his request for an evidentiary hearing, several requests concerning expedited judgment and release, and his COVID-19 release motion. The court also did not issue a certificate of appealability. Markham later filed three motions: a motion for relief from judgment, a motion to designate the appellate record, and a motion for a certificate of appealability.

Motion for Relief from Judgment

Markham sought relief under Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, apparently arguing that the court had applied the wrong standard for a certificate of appealability and had wrongly rejected his constitutional claims. The court explained that Rule 60(b)(6) provides an extraordinary remedy for exceptional circumstances and is not a substitute for a direct appeal. Although Janssen argued that Markham’s notice of appeal deprived the district court of jurisdiction, the court held that it could consider and deny the Rule 60(b)(6) motion. The court concluded that Markham’s disagreement with its earlier analysis, without more, did not establish an exceptional circumstance, and that he had not identified a legal or factual error. The motion for relief from judgment was denied.

Motion to Designate the Record on Appeal

Markham relied on Rule 10(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, but the court found that rule did not govern his request because it addresses ordering transcripts or filing a statement that no transcript will be ordered. The court understood Markham instead to be seeking to add materials outside the district-court record, including a referenced 911 transcript and data. The court stated that it lacked authority to supplement the appellate record; that authority belongs to the court of appeals under Rule 10(e). The motion to designate the record on appeal was denied.

Motion for a Certificate of Appealability

Markham also asked the district court to issue a certificate of appealability. The court noted that Markham had filed a notice of appeal on March 19, 2021, challenging, among other things, the court’s application of the certificate-of-appealability standard. Because the notice of appeal transferred jurisdiction over the appealed matters to the court of appeals, the district court concluded that it could not grant the requested relief. The motion for issuance of a certificate of appealability was denied.

Disposition

Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright denied all three pending motions: the motion for relief from judgment, the motion for an order designating the record on appeal, and the motion for issuance of a certificate of appealability.