Hill v. Miller
- Kimba Wood
- 1:15-cv-06256
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Hill v. Miller, Judge Wood did not issue a certificate of appealability because Hill improperly used Rule 60(b)(4) to challenge his state conviction.
Anthony Hill, whose appeal from the denial of his Rule 60(b)(4) motion required a certificate of appealability that the court did not issue.
What happened
Hill v. Miller involved Anthony Hill’s appeal after the court denied his request to void his New York State conviction. The court had previously denied his federal challenge to that conviction in 2016.
Hill then used a rule allowing certain judgments to be voided to attack the state court’s conviction. The court had rejected that motion because it challenged the state proceedings, not the fairness of the federal proceedings reviewing his conviction. Hill appealed that ruling.
Judge Kimba M. Wood held that Hill could not meet the standard for a certificate of appealability, which is required for this type of appeal. Because the motion did not challenge the integrity of the federal proceedings, the court held that no reasonable judge could find a valid constitutional claim based on it, and the certificate would not issue.
The detailed version
- Hill v. Miller · No. 1:15-cv-06256
- Kimba Wood
- June 22, 2020
Background
Anthony Hill was convicted in New York State court of rape, assault, sodomy, and sexual abuse. In 2016, this court denied his petition challenging his state conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Hill later filed a motion under Rule 60(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That rule concerns judgments that are legally void. The court denied the motion on March 4, 2020, holding that Hill was attacking the state court’s judgment of conviction rather than the integrity of his federal habeas proceedings. “Habeas” refers here to Hill’s federal petition challenging his custody or conviction.
Hill appealed the denial of the Rule 60(b)(4) motion.
Certificate-of-Appealability Standard
A certificate of appealability, or COA, is required before a prisoner may appeal the denial of a Rule 60(b)(4) motion when the motion improperly challenges the underlying conviction. To obtain a COA in these circumstances, a prisoner must show both that reasonable judges could debate whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the Rule 60(b) motion and that reasonable judges could debate whether the underlying habeas petition states a valid constitutional claim based on the grounds supporting the Rule 60(b) motion.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that Hill’s Rule 60(b)(4) motion was plainly improper because it was directed solely at the integrity of the state-court proceedings. It did not address the integrity of Hill’s federal habeas proceedings. For that reason, the court concluded that no reasonable judge could find that the motion showed a valid constitutional claim in Hill’s § 2254 petition.
Disposition
The court held that a certificate of appealability shall not issue. The opinion did not revisit the merits of the earlier denial of Hill’s § 2254 petition or decide whether his state conviction was valid.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.