Curtis Ray Brooks v. Harold Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999926255-2] Originating case number: 1:16-cv-00976-LMB-IDD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000031048]. Mailed to: Brooks. [16-7121]

Appeal: 16-7121

Doc: 12

Filed: 02/27/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7121

CURTIS RAY BROOKS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:16-cv-00976-LMB-IDD)

Submitted:

February 23, 2017

Decided:

February 27, 2017

Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Curtis Ray Brooks, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7121

Doc: 12

Filed: 02/27/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Curtis

Ray

Brooks

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s

order dismissing as successive and unauthorized 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.”
(2012).

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

prisoner

satisfies

this

jurists

would

reasonable

standard
find

by

that

demonstrating

the

district

that

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).
denies

relief

demonstrate

on

both

procedural

that

the

When the district court

grounds,

dispositive

the

prisoner

procedural

ruling

must
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
Brooks 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: 16-7121

Doc: 12

Filed: 02/27/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

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

3