Croston v. Norris

Filing 19

ORDER denying Motion for Certificate of Appealability. Signed by Judge Susan Webber Wright on 1/8/09. (dac)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION
DETRICK CROSTON PETITIONER v. LARRY NORRIS, Director of the Arkansas Department of Correction ORDE R Before this Court is what has been filed by the Clerk's office as petitioner Detrick Croston's motion for a certificate of appealability [doc.#18]. This Court has the authority to issue such a certificate. See, e.g., Cox v. Norris, 133 F.3d 565, 569 (8th Cir. 1997); Tiedeman v. Benson, 122 F.3d 518, 522 (8th Cir. 1997). 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). 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; NO. 5:08CV00227 SWW RESPONDENT

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). 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.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 8th day of January 2009. /s/Susan Webber Wright UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-