Rodney Pitts v. Frank Bishop, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999974796-2] Originating case number: 1:16-cv-01493-JFM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000016622]. Mailed to: R Pitts. [16-7468]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-7468 Doc: 12 Filed: 02/03/2017 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7468 RODNEY WILLIAM PITTS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. FRANK BISHOP, JR.; BRIAN E. FROSH, The Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cv-01493-JFM) Submitted: January 31, 2017 Decided: February 3, 2017 Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rodney William Pitts, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-7468 Doc: 12 Filed: 02/03/2017 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Rodney William Pitts seeks to appeal the district court’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. (2012). 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.” U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 28 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 constitutional right. a debatable claim of the denial of a Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Pitts 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: 16-7468 Doc: 12 Filed: 02/03/2017 Pg: 3 of 3 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?