Davis v. State of Alabama

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge L Scott Coogler on 4/11/2018. (PSM)

FILED
2018 Apr-11 PM 01:38
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHEASTERN DIVISION
JAMES A. DAVIS,
Petitioner
vs.
STATE OF ALABAMA,
Respondent

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:17-cv-01363-LSC-HNJ

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On March 15, 2018, the magistrate judge entered a report and recommendation
and allowed the parties therein fourteen (14) days in which to file objections to the
recommendations made by the magistrate judge. On March 26, 2018, petitioner filed
objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.
After careful and de novo consideration of the record in this case, the magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation, and the petitioner’s objections thereto, the court
hereby ADOPTS the report of the magistrate judge. The court further ACCEPTS the
magistrate judge’s recommendations that the court deny the petition for writ of habeas
corpus.

1

Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, the Court has evaluated
the claims within the petition for suitability for the issuance of a certificate of
appealability (COA). See 28 U.S.C. § 2253.
Rule 22(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that when an
appeal is taken by a petitioner, the district judge who rendered the judgment “shall”
either issue a COA or state the reasons why such a certificate should not issue. Pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), a COA may issue only when the petitioner “has made a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” This showing can be
established by demonstrating that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or for that
matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner” or that
issues were “adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)(citing Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 & n.4 (1983)). For
procedural rulings, a COA will issue only if reasonable jurists could debate whether the
petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and whether the court’s
procedural ruling was correct.
The Court finds that reasonable jurists could not debate its resolution of the
claims presented in this habeas corpus petition. For the reasons stated in the magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation, the Court DECLINES to issue a COA with
respect to any claims.
2

The Court will enter a separate order in conformity with this Memorandum
Opinion.
DONE and ORDERED on April 11, 2018.

_____________________________
L. Scott Coogler
United States District Judge
160704

3