Spencer v. Haynes

Filing 21

ORDER denying Motion for Certificate of Appealability re 20 Notice of Appeal. After reviewing the record in this case, this Court determines that the standard for a certificate of appealability is not met and that petitioner's motion seeking same should be and hereby is denied. Signed by Judge Susan Webber Wright on 11/4/2013. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EASTERN DIVISION
ADDONES SPENCER,
REG. #11060-027
Petitioner,
vs.

ANTHONY HAYNES,
Warden, FCI-Forrest City,
Respondent.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

No. 2:13-cv-00059-SWW-HDY

ORDER
Before the Court is petitioner Addones Spencer’s motion for a certificate of
appealability [doc.#20]. A certificate of appealability certifies that the applicant has made
a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, that is, a showing that the
issues are debatable among reasonable jurists, a court could resolve the issues differently,
or the issues deserve further proceedings. See, e.g., Carson v. Director of the Iowa Dept.
of Correctional Services, 150 F.3d 973, 975 (8th Cir. 1998).1
After reviewing the record in this case, this Court determines that the standard for
a certificate of appealability is not met and that petitioner’s motion seeking same should
1

With respect to claims that are procedurally barred, the Eighth Circuit has summarized
the factors to consider when determining whether a certificate of appealability should issue when
a habeas claim is denied on procedural grounds: “(1) if the claim is clearly procedurally
defaulted, the certificate should not be issued; (2) even if the procedural default is not clear, if
there is no merit to the substantive constitutional claims, the certificate should not be issued; but,
(3) if the procedural default is not clear and the substantive constitutional claims are debatable
among jurists of reason, the certificate should be granted.” Khaimov v. Crist, 297 F.3d 783, 786
(8th Cir. 2002) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000)). See also Langley v.
Norris, 465 F.3d 861, 863 (8th Cir. 2006).

be and hereby is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 4th day of November 2013.

/s/Susan Webber Wright
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-