KIRKSEY v. JONES

Filing 39

ORDER DENYING THE 1 PETITION AND DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY - The 35 report and recommendation is accepted. The clerk must enter judgment stating, "The petition is denied with prejudice." A certificate of appealability is denied. The clerk must close the file. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 5/22/2017. (tdl)

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

DARRYL KIRKSEY,
Petitioner,
v.

CASE NO. 4:15cv444-RH/EMT

JULIE JONES,
Respondent.
_________________________________/
ORDER DENYING THE PETITION AND
DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
This petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is before
the court on the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, ECF No. 35. The
deadline for objections was extended at the petitioner’s request, but the extended
deadline passed more than a month ago. No objections have been filed.
The report and recommendation correctly concludes that the petition should
be denied. The United States Supreme Court has granted certiorari to review one of
the decisions cited in the report and recommendation. See Wilson v. Sellers, 137 S.
Ct. 1203 (Feb. 27, 2017) (granting certiorari to review Wilson v. Warden, Ga.
Diagnostic Prison, 834 F.3d 1227 (11th Cir. 2016)). In Wilson, the Eleventh
Case No. 4:15cv444-RH/EMT

Page 2 of 3

Circuit held that a federal habeas court should not “look through” an unexplained
state appellate decision to a lower court’s reasoned decision. But even if the
Supreme Court holds to the contrary, the decision will not affect the outcome in
this case.
Rule 11 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires a district court to
“issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to
the applicant.” Under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), a certificate of appealability may
issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.” See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-38 (2003); Slack
v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000); Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893
n.4 (1983); see also Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 402-13 (2000) (setting out
the standards applicable to a § 2254 petition on the merits). As the Court said in
Slack:
To obtain a COA under § 2253(c), a habeas prisoner must make a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a
demonstration that, under Barefoot, includes showing that
reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree
that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner
or that the issues presented were “ ‘adequate to deserve
encouragement to proceed further.’ ”
529 U.S. at 483-84 (quoting Barefoot, 463 U.S. at 893 n.4). Further, to obtain a
certificate of appealability when dismissal is based on procedural grounds, a
petitioner must show, “at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable

Case No. 4:15cv444-RH/EMT

Page 3 of 3

whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and
that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct
in its procedural ruling.” Id. at 484.
The petitioner has not made the required showing. This order thus denies a
certificate of appealability. Because the petitioner has not obtained—and is not
entitled to—a certificate of appealability, any appeal will not be taken in good
faith. I certify under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a) that an appeal will
not be taken in good faith and that the petitioner is not otherwise entitled to
proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. But for the requirement to obtain a certificate
of appealability, leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis would be granted.
For these reasons,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The report and recommendation is accepted.
2. The clerk must enter judgment stating, “The petition is denied with
prejudice.”
3. A certificate of appealability is denied.
4. The clerk must close the file.
SO ORDERED on May 22, 2017.
s/Robert L. Hinkle
United States District Judge

Case No. 4:15cv444-RH/EMT