Desmon Eliaba v. Harold Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. A certificate of appealability is denied. Originating case number: 3:15-cv-00376-RCY. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [1000027865]. Mailed to: Desmon Eliaba. [16-7392]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-7392 Doc: 14 Filed: 02/22/2017 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7392 DESMON ELIABA, Petitioner- Appellant, v. HAROLD CLARKE, Director, Virginia DOC, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Roderick Charles Young, Magistrate Judge. (3:15-cv-00376-RCY) Submitted: February 16, 2017 Decided: February 22, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Desmon Eliaba, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-7392 Doc: 14 Filed: 02/22/2017 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Desmon Eliaba seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order ∗ dismissing as untimely 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 Eliaba has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ∗ The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2012). 2 Appeal: 16-7392 Doc: 14 adequately Filed: 02/22/2017 presented in the Pg: 3 of 3 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?