SMITH v. STATE OF FLORIDA et al
Filing
36
ORDER denying Doc. 35 Motion for Certificate of Appealability. Signed by SENIOR JUDGE MAURICE M PAUL on 1/24/2013. (jws)(Forwarded to USCA, 13-10262-D via email.)
Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
TED SMITH,
Petitioner,
v.
CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00265-MP-GRJ
STATE OF FLORIDA, and
PAM BONDI, Florida Attorney General,
Respondents.
_____________________________/
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on petitioner’s motion for certificate of appealability,
construed from his notice of appeal. (Doc. 35). On January 15, 2013, petitioner filed a notice of
interlocutory appeal of the Court’s January 8, 2013 order (doc. 30) affirming the magistrate
judge’s December 28, 2012 order (doc. 28) denying petitioner’s “Motion to Vacate Void/
Judgment/ Order and Release Petitioner According to Federal Rule Civil Procedure 60(b)(4)”
(doc. 27).
An appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from the final order in a habeas
corpus proceeding unless the Court issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.
2253(c)(1). The Court may issue a certificate of appealability only if the applicant has made a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2).
For the reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s order (doc. 28) and the Court’s order
affirming the magistrate judge’s order (doc. 30), the Court finds that petitioner fails to make a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and the issues are not adequate enough
to deserve encouragement to proceed further.
Page 2 of 2
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
Petitioner’s motion for certificate of appealability (doc. 35) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED this
24th day of January, 2013
s/Maurice M. Paul
Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge
Case No: 1:11-cv-00265-MP-GRJ
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?