Serratt v. Jones et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM OPINION ADOPTING and ACCEPTING the 4 Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins on 11/14/2017. (JLC)

FILED
2017 Nov-14 AM 09:29
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
JASPER DIVISION
GIRLIS HUGH SERRATT,
Petitioner
vs.
KARLA JONES, Warden, and THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF ALABAMA,
Respondents

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 6:17-cv-00908-VEH-HNJ

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On June 6, 2017, the magistrate judge entered a report and recommendation and
allowed the parties therein fourteen (14) days in which to file objections to the
magistrate judge’s recommendations. On June 11, 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 the 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 court dismiss the petition for writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) and for failure to comply with 28
U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).

Page 1 of 3

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.
Page 2 of 3

The Court will enter a separate order in conformity with this Memorandum
Opinion.
DONE this 14th day of November, 2017.

VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS
United States District Judge

Page 3 of 3