Case Explained: Medina v. Hansen, et al.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Filed: 2026-08-14 Docket: 1:24-CV-02524-PAB) The Tenth Circuit denied Delano Medina’s application for a certificate of appealability (COA) and dismissed the matter. The court held that a COA is required to appeal the district court’s denial of Medina’s second motion to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), as the motion effectively challenged the merits of his underlying § 2254 habeas petition. Under the standard established in *Slack v. McDaniel*, a COA may be issued only if reasonable jurists could debate whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling. The court found Medina failed to meet this burden because he did not dispute the district court’s determination that his motion was untimely; rather, he argued only on the merits of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim regarding a plea offer. Citing *Banister v. Davis*, the court noted that Rule 59(e) motions must be filed within twenty-eight days and cannot be extended. Since Medina filed his second motion more than three months after judgment was entered, the court concluded no jurist of reason could debate the timeliness ruling. Consequently, relief was denied, and the appeal from the denial of the second Rule 59(e) motion was dismissed. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.