Parker v. Billups et al

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge L Scott Coogler on 5/10/2017. (PSM)

FILED
2017 May-10 PM 01:20
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHEASTERN DIVISION
SHAQUILLE DIJION PARKER,
Petitioner
vs.
PHYLLIS BILLUPS, Warden, and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
THE STATE OF ALABAMA,
Respondents

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 5:15-cv-01481-LSC-HGD

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On April 12, 2017, the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation was
entered and the parties were allowed therein fourteen (14) days in which to file
objections to the recommendations made by the magistrate judge. On April 25,
2017, petitioner filed objections to the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation.
After careful consideration of the record in this case, the magistrate judge’s
report and recommendation and petitioner’s objections thereto, the court hereby
ADOPTS the report of the magistrate judge. The court further ACCEPTS the
recommendations of the magistrate judge that the petition for writ of habeas corpus
be denied.

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 the issues were “adequate to deserve
encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120
S.Ct. 1595, 1603-04, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000) (citing Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S.
880, 893 & n.4, 103 S.Ct. 3383, 3394-95 & n.4, 77 L.Ed.2d 1090 (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. Id.
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.
A separate order in conformity with this Memorandum Opinion will be
entered contemporaneously herewith.
DONE and ORDERED on May 10, 2017.

_____________________________
L. Scott Coogler
United States District Judge
160704