Vickery v. Hall, 3:18-CV-00083-CDL-CHW. (2019)
Court: District Court, M.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20190718934
Visitors: 11
Filed: Jul. 17, 2019
Latest Update: Jul. 17, 2019
Summary: ORDER CLAY D. LAND , Chief District Judge . Presently pending before the Court are Petitioner Russell Vickery's motions for a certificate of appealability ("COA") and for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (ECF Nos. 24, 28, 29). Pursuant to the requirements of Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases , Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2); see also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 , 483-84 (200
Summary: ORDER CLAY D. LAND , Chief District Judge . Presently pending before the Court are Petitioner Russell Vickery's motions for a certificate of appealability ("COA") and for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (ECF Nos. 24, 28, 29). Pursuant to the requirements of Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases , Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2); see also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 , 483-84 (2000..
More
ORDER
CLAY D. LAND, Chief District Judge.
Presently pending before the Court are Petitioner Russell Vickery's motions for a certificate of appealability ("COA") and for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (ECF Nos. 24, 28, 29). Pursuant to the requirements of Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000). Therefore, Petitioner's motions for a certificate of appealability (Docs. 24, 28) are DENIED. Because this Court has found that Petitioner is not entitled to a COA, his motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (ECF No. 29) is DENIED as moot.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
