Langford

Langford v. Day

Good Law
134 F.3d 1381·98 Daily Journal DAR 811·1998 WL 28077·1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 1069·98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 598
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 22, 1998No. 97-99035California865 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

ORDER

Terry Allen Langford seeks to appeal the district court's denial of his motion for relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). His Rule 60(b) motion sought relief from a judgment of the district court denying Langford's petition for habeas corpus challenging his conviction and death sentence. The district court denied a certificate of probable cause. A certificate of probable cause was required under the former version of 28 U.S.C. § 2253 for an appeal of a denial of a Rule 60(b) motion seeking relief from a denial of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . Lynch ii. Blodgett, 999 F.2d 401, 402-03 (9th Cir.1993). The Antiterroiism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AED-PA") amended 28 U.S.C. § 2253 to require a certificate of appealability instead of a certificate of probable cause. We interpret Lang-ford's notice of appeal as requesting this court to issue a certificate of probable cause or a certificate of appealability, whichever is appropriate.

We need not determine whether the amended version of § 2253 applies to Lang-ford's case, because we conclude that he fails to meet what we have described as the more generous standard of a certificate of probable cause. See Greenawalt v. Stewart,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.