Donald Farrow v. Erik Hooks

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis [1000285704-2] Originating case number: 5:17-hc-02134-D. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000360925]. Mailed to: Donald Farrow. [18-6353]

Appeal: 18-6353

Doc: 8

Filed: 09/05/2018

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6353

DONALD DURRANT FARROW,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ERIK A. HOOKS; PAUL G. BUTLER, JR.; FAYE DANIELS,
Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (5:17-hc-02134-D)

Submitted: August 28, 2018

Decided: September 5, 2018

Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald Durrant Farrow, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 18-6353

Doc: 8

Filed: 09/05/2018

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Donald Durrant Farrow seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his
petition for lack of jurisdiction. The portion of the district court’s order denying the
petition as an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition is not appealable
unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 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 Farrow has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss this portion of the appeal.
We affirm the portion of the district court’s order denying mandamus relief
because the district court is not empowered to enter mandamus relief against state
officials. See Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg Cty., 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir.
1969). We grant Farrow leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral

2

Appeal: 18-6353

Doc: 8

Filed: 09/05/2018

Pg: 3 of 3

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART,
DISMISSED IN PART

3