Stenhouse v. Norris
ORDER granting 29 Motion for Certificate of Appealability. Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry L. Jones, Jr on 10/27/09. (dac)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION TISHAUN DEMETRI STENHOUSE vs. Civil Case No. 5:06CV00153 HLJ PETITIONER
LARRY NORRIS, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction ORDER
Tishaun Demetri Stenhouse petitioned for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and by Memorandum and Order entered on September 24, 2009, this court denied relief and dismissed the petition. He has now filed an Application for Certificate of DE #29. A
Appealability for Proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
certificate of appealability (COA) "should issue if the applicant has `made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,' 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), which we have interpreted to require that the `petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the
constitutional claims debatable or wrong.'" Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274, 282 (2004), quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483484 (2000). To satisfy this standard, a petitioner must show whether (or, for should have been that the issues encouragement to
that reasonable jurists could debate that matter, agree that) the petition resolved in a different manner or presented were " 'adequate to deserve proceed further.'
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. at 484.
This determination "requires
an overview of the claims ... and a general assessment of their merits," but the statute prohibits full consideration of the factual or legal bases supporting the claims. Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). After careful review of the record, I find Petitioner's motion (DE #29) should be, and is hereby, granted. SO ORDERED this 27th day of October, 2009.
United States Magistrate Judge
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?