Winston Douglas v. Claude Mitchell
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999325811-2] Originating case number: 1:13-cv-01241-AJT-TRJ Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999403774].. [14-6389]
Appeal: 14-6389
Doc: 13
Filed: 07/28/2014
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6389
WINSTON D. DOUGLAS,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
CLAUDE W. MITCHELL, Superintendent,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Anthony John Trenga,
District Judge. (1:13-cv-01241-AJT-TRJ)
Submitted:
July 24, 2014
Before FLOYD and
Circuit Judge.
THACKER,
Decided: July 28, 2014
Circuit
Judges,
and
DAVIS,
Senior
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Winston D. Douglas, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 14-6389
Doc: 13
Filed: 07/28/2014
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Winston
D.
Douglas
seeks
to
appeal
the
district
court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)
petition.
or
judge
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
issues
a
certificate
§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue
absent
“a
appealability.
28
U.S.C.
A certificate of appealability will not
substantial
constitutional right.”
of
showing
of
the
denial
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
of
a
When the
district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
this
standard
by
demonstrating
that
reasonable
jurists
would
find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484
Cockrell,
(2000);
(2003).
see
Miller-El
v.
537
U.S.
322,
336-38
When the district court denies relief on procedural
grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive
procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a
debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.
Slack,
529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Douglas has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly,
we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.
We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
2
Appeal: 14-6389
Doc: 13
Filed: 07/28/2014
Pg: 3 of 3
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?