Alexander Jiggetts v. State of Maryland

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999686230-2] Originating case number: 1:15-cv-02676-JFM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999765110]. Mailed to: appellant. [15-7519]

Appeal: 15-7519

Doc: 10

Filed: 03/01/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7519

ALEXANDER JIGGETTS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF MARYLAND,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:15-cv-02676-JFM)

Submitted:

February 25, 2016

Before SHEDD and
Circuit Judge.

HARRIS,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

and

March 1, 2016

DAVIS,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alexander Jiggetts, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7519

Doc: 10

Filed: 03/01/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Alexander

Jiggetts

has

been

confined

to

a

state

mental

health facility after being declared incompetent to stand trial,
and he seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing
without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. *

The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a

certificate

(2012).

of

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(A)

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district

merits,
that

court’s

debatable

or

a

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

When the district court denies

Slack

satisfies

jurists

this

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

standard

find

constitutional
529

U.S.

by

that

the

claims

is

473,

484

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
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 conclude that the district court’s order is final and
appealable.
See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807
F.3d 619, 623-24, 629-30 (4th Cir. 2015).

2

Appeal: 15-7519

Doc: 10

Filed: 03/01/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Jiggetts 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
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3