White v. Norris
ORDER denying Motion for Certificate of Appealability. Signed by Magistrate Judge Beth Deere on 5/25/10. (dac)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION J A M E S WHITE A D C #136671 v. CASE NO.: 5:09CV00306 BD P E T IT IO N E R
R A Y HOBBS, Interim Director, A r k a n s a s Department of Correction ORDER
R ESPON D EN T
O n April 22, 2010, this Court denied Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas c o rp u s under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Now pending is Petitioner's motion for certificate of a p p e a la b ility ("COA") (docket entry #13).1 For the following reasons, this motion is D E N IE D . T itle 28 U.S.C. § 2253 limits the right of appeal in habeas corpus proceedings w h e n the petitioner's detention arises out of process issued by a State court. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 482, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1603 (2000). The Court may issue a COA only if a petitioner has made a "substantial showing of the d e n ia l of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When a court denies a habeas p e titio n on procedural grounds, as here, the petitioner must also show "that jurists of re a s o n would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ru lin g ." Jimenez v. Quarterman, 129 S.Ct. 681, 684 (2009) (quoting Slack, 529 U.S. at
The motion for certificate of appealability is part of Petitioner's notice of appeal
(# 1 3 ).
484). The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has held the standard for issuance of a C O A to be a "modest standard." Randolph v. Kemna, 276 F.3d 401, 403 n. 1 (8th Cir. 2 0 0 2 ) (quoting Charles v. Hickman, 228 F.3d 981, 982 n. 1 (9th Cir. 2000)). In this case, the Petitioner has not made a substantial showing and, in fact, has not m a d e even a modest showing, that he was deprived of a constitutional right. The Court d id not reach the merits of this petition because Petitioner not only procedurally defaulted h is claims, but he also failed to timely file his petition. Petitioner's justification for the p ro c e d u ra l failure does not excuse procedural default. Regarding the timeliness of the p e titio n , and despite Petitioner's argument to the contrary, his petition was not filed one d a y before the end of the one-year limitations period. Because Petitioner has failed to p re s e n t a basis for the Court to issue a certificate of appealability, his motion for c e rtif ic a te of appealability (#13) is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 25th day of May, 2010.
___________________________________ U N IT E D 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?