Hester v. Ramey, 4:18-CV-845 SNLJ. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. Missouri
Number: infdco20191017648
Visitors: 9
Filed: Oct. 11, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 11, 2019
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR. , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on petitioner Edison Hester's motion for a certificate of appealability. (Docket No. 17). The Court previously considered whether or not to issue a certificate of appealability. In order to issue such a certificate, the Court must find a substantial showing of the denial of a federal right. See Tiedeman v. Benson, 122 F.3d 518 , 522 (8 th Cir. 1997). "A substantial showing is a showing t
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR. , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on petitioner Edison Hester's motion for a certificate of appealability. (Docket No. 17). The Court previously considered whether or not to issue a certificate of appealability. In order to issue such a certificate, the Court must find a substantial showing of the denial of a federal right. See Tiedeman v. Benson, 122 F.3d 518 , 522 (8 th Cir. 1997). "A substantial showing is a showing th..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR., District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on petitioner Edison Hester's motion for a certificate of appealability. (Docket No. 17). The Court previously considered whether or not to issue a certificate of appealability. In order to issue such a certificate, the Court must find a substantial showing of the denial of a federal right. See Tiedeman v. Benson, 122 F.3d 518, 522 (8th Cir. 1997). "A substantial showing is a showing that issues are debatable among reasonable jurists, a court could resolve the issues differently, or the issues deserve further proceedings." Cox v. Norris, 133 F.3d 565, 569 (8th Cir. 1997).
When the Court dismissed petitioner's petition, the Court noted that petitioner had not made such a showing. As such, the Court ordered that it would not issue a certificate of appealability. Petitioner's motion simply repeats assertions made in the petition. Therefore, the Court will deny petitioner's motion.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's motion for a certificate of appealability (Docket No. 17) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability.
Source: Leagle
