STARLING v. MYERS

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
ALFRED STARLING, 	:
:
Petitioner, 	:
:
VS. 	:
: 	NO. 4:22-cv-30-CDL-AGH
Warden DARRIN MYERS, 	:
:
Respondent. 	:
ORDER
Petitioner filed an Application for a Certificate of Appealability (“COA”) (ECF No.
46) to appeal the Court’s denial of his “Motion for Relief from Judgment Under Rule 60”
(ECF No. 41) and his “Motion to Stay Consideration of Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) Motion
Pending Disposition of State CPC Proceedings” (ECF No. 44). 	As discussed below, a
COA is DENIED.
I. 	PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition was dismissed as untimely on October 17,
2022. 	ECF No. 29. 	The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied
a COA on May 10, 2023. 	ECF No. 38. The United States Supreme Court denied his
petition for a writ of certiorari on January 8, 2024, and his petition for rehearing on March
18, 2024. 	ECF Nos. 39, 40.
Petitioner filed a motion to set aside judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60 on August 12, 2025, arguing that he is entitled to relief from judgment based
Case 4:22-cv-00030-CDL-AGH Document 51 Filed 02/23/26 Page 1 of 5

2
on newly discovered evidence and fraud. 	ECF No. 41 at 4-5. 	The United States
Magistrate Judge recommended denying the motion because (1) Petitioner’s assertions
were factually flawed in several respects; (2) the motion was untimely filed; (3) Petitioner
was not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(4) based on a void judgment; and (4) Petitioner
was not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(3) based on fraud on the court. 	ECF No. 42.
Petitioner objected to the Recommendation. 	ECF No. 45. 	He also moved for an
order staying consideration of his Rule 60(b) motion “until the Supreme Court of Georgia
rules on Petitioner's Application for Certificate of Probable Cause to Appeal.” 	ECF No.
44 at 1. 	He explained that after filing his Rule 60(b) motion in this Court, he filed a state
habeas petition in the Superior Court of Wilcox County raising the same grounds for relief.
Id. 	The state trial court had already dismissed the petition but his Application for a
Certificate of Probable Cause to Appeal the denial of habeas relief was pending in the
Georgia Supreme Court. 	Id.
Following 	a 	de 	novo 	review, 	the 	District 	Court 	adopted 	the 	Report 	and
Recommendation and denied Petitioner’s Rule 60 motion. 	ECF No. 46. 	The Court also
denied Petitioner’s Motion to Stay because Petitioner failed to demonstrate circumstances
warranting a stay. 	Id.
II. 	COA STANDARD AND ANALYSIS
Petitioner argues he is entitled to a COA because reasonable jurists could debate (1)
whether the District Court should have determined if “the state trial court possessed
subject-matter jurisdiction where the record lacks proof of a valid grand jury indictment
Case 4:22-cv-00030-CDL-AGH Document 51 Filed 02/23/26 Page 2 of 5

3
and jurisdiction was challenged as void on the face of the record”; (2) whether the District
Court conducted a de novo review of his objection to the Report and Recommendation; (3)
whether the District Court “erred by shifting the burden to Petitioner to disprove the
existence of a valid grand jury indictment”; (4) “whether the District Court erred in denying
Rule 60(b) relief where the prior habeas dismissal rested on procedural grounds without
resolving whether the court had authority to act, thereby implicating defects in the integrity
of the federal habeas proceeding rather than the underlying conviction”; and (5) “whether
the District Court abused its discretion by denying a stay despite Petitioner's pending state
proceedings challenging subject-matter jurisdiction and the risk of inconsistent rulings
between state and federal courts.” 	ECF No. 47 at 1-2.
“[A] certificate of appealability is required for the appeal of any denial of a Rule
60(b) motion for relief from a judgment in a § 2254 . . . proceeding.” 	Gonzalez v. Sec’y
for Dep’t of Corr., 366 F.3d 1253, 1263 (11th Cir. 2004). 	The Court may grant a COA
“only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 	“At the COA stage, the only question is whether the applicant
has shown that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's resolution of his
constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to
deserve encouragement to proceed further.” 	Lambrix v. 	Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 851
F.3d 1158, 1169 (11th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). 	“[T]he district court’s holding that
[Petitioner] failed to demonstrate that he was entitled to have his judgment reopened under
Rule 60(b)[] is a procedural ruling.” 	Id. (citation omitted). 	To obtain a COA in this
Case 4:22-cv-00030-CDL-AGH Document 51 Filed 02/23/26 Page 3 of 5

4
situation, Petitioner must demonstrate “that jurists of reason would find it debatable
whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists
of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural
ruling.” 	Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 	Thus, to obtain a COA, Petitioner
must demonstrate the Court’s denial of his Rule 60(b) motion “is itself debatable among
jurists of reason; otherwise, the appeal would not ‘deserve encouragement to proceed
further.’” 	Lambrix, 851 F.3d at 1169 (quoting Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115 (2017)).
For reasons explained in the January 9, 2026 Report and Recommendation (ECF
No. 42), which was adopted by this Court following a de novo review of the record and
Petitioner’s objections (ECF No. 46), no reasonable jurist could “‘conclude that the District
Court abused its discretion in declining to reopen the judgment.’” 	Lambrix, 851 F.3d at
1170 (quoting Buck, 580 U.S. at 123). 	Additionally, given the lack of circumstances
warranting a stay and Petitioner’s lack of diligence in filing his state habeas action,1 he has
not shown that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the Court was correct in
its procedural ruling denying petitioner's motion to stay consideration of his Rule 60(b)
motion until after the Georgia Supreme Court ruled on his Application for a Certificate of
Probable Cause to Appeal.
1 Petitioner filed his state habeas petition years after he had access to the indictment on
which he based some of the claims and well over a year after he had the affidavit on which
he based the remainder of his claims. 	ECF No. 14-1 (copy of indictment filed by
Respondent on June 2, 2022); ECF No. 41-3 (another copy of same indictment filed by
Petitioner to support current claims); ECF No. 41-5 (showing affidavit signed April 23,
2024); ECF No. 44 at 1 (Petitioner explaining that he filed the state habeas petition raising
the same claims after he filed his Rule 60(b) motion in August 2025).
Case 4:22-cv-00030-CDL-AGH Document 51 Filed 02/23/26 Page 4 of 5

5
Accordingly, Petitioner’s Application for a COA (ECF No. 47) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 23rd day of February, 2026.
S/ Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
Case 4:22-cv-00030-CDL-AGH Document 51 Filed 02/23/26 Page 5 of 5