Richards v. Gordy et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge L Scott Coogler on 4/14/2017. (PSM,)
2017 Apr-14 AM 11:13
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
TIMOTHY J. RICHARDS,
CHRISTOPHER GORDY, Warden, and )
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
THE STATE OF ALABAMA,
Case No. 5:17-cv-00253-LSC-HGD
On March 15, 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. Petitioner
sought and obtained an extension of time, to April 12, 2017, in which to file
objections. Petitioner filed objections to the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation on April 7, 2017.
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
Page 1 of 3
recommendations of the magistrate judge that the petition for writ of habeas corpus
be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), for failure to comply with 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(b)(3)(A), and as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
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
Page 2 of 3
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 April 14, 2017.
L. Scott Coogler
United States District Judge
Page 3 of 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?