Evans v. United States of America

Filing 14

ORDER denying Petitioner's construed motion for certificate of appealability re 11 Notice of Appeal filed by Wayne Evans. Signed by Judge B. Avant Edenfield on 5/8/2013. (loh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
STATESBORO DIVISION
WAYNE EVANS,
Petitioner,
V

6: 13-cv-5

.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
ORDER
Before the Court is Wayne Evans's Notice
of Appeal, ECF No. 11, which the Court
construes as a motion for certificate of
See Edwards v.
appealability ("COA").
United States, 114 F.3d 1083, 1084 (11th Cir.
1997). Evans's appeal, however, raises no
COA-worthy issues. His motion is DENIED.
"Before an appeal may be entertained, a
prisoner who was denied habeas relief in the
district court must first seek and obtain a
COA . . . ." Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.
322, 335-36 (2003); see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).
The Court will issue a COA "where a
petitioner has made a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right." MillerEl, 537 U.S. at 336; see also 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(2).
Petitioner "must show 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."
Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 336 (internal quotations
omitted).
When the district court denies a habeas
petition on procedural grounds without
reaching the prisoner's underlying

constitutional claim, a COA should
issue when the prisoner shows, at least,
that jurists of reason would find it
debatable 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.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000) (emphasis added).
Evans filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition
earlier this year asserting seven grounds for
relief. ECF No. 2 at 2-4. The Magistrate
Judge recommended dismissing grounds 1, 2,
3, 4, and 6 as procedurally defaulted by
Evans's failure to raise them on direct appeal.
Id. at 4. The Magistrate addressed grounds 5
and 7 on the merits, ultimately recommending
dismissal of those as well. Id at 6-8. The
Magistrate "discem[ed] no COA-worthy
issues" and recommended that "no COA
should issue." Id. at 9. Evans filed an
objection wherein he failed to adequately
address the deficiencies identified by the
Magistrate, but instead, aired fruitless
ramblings and pointed barbs directed toward
the Magistrate's intelligence and integrity.
See ECF No. 4. This Court adopted the
Magistrate's Report and Recommendation as
the opinion of the Court. ECF No. 6.
Whether or not Evans's cathartic exercise
remedied any frustration felt by him, it did not
remedy any of the legal deficiencies of his
claim. That claim remains deficient for the
reasons stated by the Magistrate and adopted
by the Court. Moreover, any argument that
the Court erred in denying Evans's motion for
relief from a final judgment based on
receiving bad legal advice from a fellow

inmate is patently frivolous. See ECF Nos. 8;
10. None of these points are legally or
factually debatable.
Accordingly, Defendant's motion for
COA, ECF No. 11, is DENIED.

This

T day of May, 2013.

13. AVANT DMIELD, JUDGE'
UNITED STATES DISTRICT çt'OURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GtORGIA

2