Timothy Evans v. Harold Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999810021-2]. Originating case number: 1:15-cv-00558-CMH-IDD. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999915309]. Mailed to: appellant. [16-6500]

Appeal: 16-6500

Doc: 13

Filed: 08/23/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6500

TIMOTHY CLIFTON EVANS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:15-cv-00558-CMH-IDD)

Submitted:

August 18, 2016

Decided:

August 23, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy Clifton Evans, Appellant Pro Se. Aaron Jennings Campbell,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6500

Doc: 13

Filed: 08/23/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Timothy Clifton Evans seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.

The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a certificate of appealability.

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
§ 2253(c)(2) (2012).

28 U.S.C.

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 (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 have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Evans 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

2

Appeal: 16-6500

Doc: 13

Filed: 08/23/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED

3