Filed: Jul. 29, 2013
Latest Update: Jul. 29, 2013
Summary: ORDER B. AVANT EDENFIELD, District Judge. Before the Court is James Lynn's motion for certificate of appelability ("COA"). ECF No. 15. Despite reciting the correct legal standard for granting a COA, Lynn fails to make the requisite showing. His motion is DENIED. As Lynn notes, "[b]efore an appeal may be entertained, a prisoner who was denied habeas relief in the district court must first seek and obtain a COA. . . ." Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 , 335-36 (2003); see 28 U.S.C.
Summary: ORDER B. AVANT EDENFIELD, District Judge. Before the Court is James Lynn's motion for certificate of appelability ("COA"). ECF No. 15. Despite reciting the correct legal standard for granting a COA, Lynn fails to make the requisite showing. His motion is DENIED. As Lynn notes, "[b]efore an appeal may be entertained, a prisoner who was denied habeas relief in the district court must first seek and obtain a COA. . . ." Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 , 335-36 (2003); see 28 U.S.C. ..
More
ORDER
B. AVANT EDENFIELD, District Judge.
Before the Court is James Lynn's motion for certificate of appelability ("COA"). ECF No. 15. Despite reciting the correct legal standard for granting a COA, Lynn fails to make the requisite showing. His motion is DENIED.
As Lynn notes, "[b]efore an appeal may be entertained, a prisoner who was denied habeas relief in the district court must first seek and obtain a COA. . . ." Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003); see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). The Court will issue a COA "where a petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 336; see also 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Petitioners "must show that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further." Id. (internal quotations omitted).
When the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner's underlying constitutional claim, a COA should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, 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) (emphasis added).
This Court dismissed Lynn's habeas petition because he procedurally defaulted four of his claims and the fifth was not cognizable in a habeas petition. See ECF No. 9. Lynn makes no attempt to argue the Court erred in coming to those conclusions other than to recite in conclusory fashion that he has "made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." ECF No. 15 at 5. He does not dispute the Court's analysis of why Lynn procedurally defaulted claims 1-4 in his petition. Or why Lynn's access to legal materials claim cannot be brought in a habeas petition.
Because Lynn makes no showing, much less a substantial showing, his request for a COA is DENIED.
