D'Angelo v. Morales

Filing 16

ORDER denying D'Angelo's construed motion for a certificate of appealability re 14 Notice of Appeal filed by Campanella D'Angelo. Signed by Judge B. Avant Edenfield on 12/11/13. (bcw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
STATESBORO DIVISION
CAMPANELLA D'ANGELO,
Movant,
V.

6: 13-cv-62
JOSE MORALES,
Respondent.

[SJ1OI
Before the Court is Campanella D'Angelo's Notice of Appeal, ECF No. 14, which the
Court construes as a motion for certificate of appealability.

See Edwards v. United States, 114

F.3d 1083, 1084(11thCir. 1997).
"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." Miller-El, 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."

Id (internal

quotations omitted). And where, as here, a 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).
D'Angelo has not made the requisite showing. The Court denied his § 2254 petition
because D'Angelo (1) failed to exhaust state court remedies for some claims, see ECF No. 8 at
12; (2) procedurally defaulted others, see id. at 15-18; and (3) failed to state a claim on yet
others, see id. at 19. No reasonable jurist could disagree that D'Angelo failed to seek a
certificate of appealability from the Georgia Supreme Court after the state habeas court's denial
of some claims. Nor could one disagree that D'Angelo simply failed to raise some issues when
he first had the chance at trial. And finally, no reasonable jurist could disagree that D'Angelo's
claims attacking the state habeas proceedings fail to state a claim.

See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a)

(allowing challenges to state court convictions and sentences for violations of the Constitution or
laws of the United States); Quince v. Crosby, 360 F.3d 1259, 1262 (11th Cir. 2004) (holding that
"an alleged defect in a [state] collateral proceeding does not state a basis for habeas relief).
Because D'Angelo fails to show that "jurists of reason would it find it debatable whether"
the Court's dismissal on procedural grounds was correct, the Court DENIES D'Angelo's
construed motion for a certificate of appealability. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484.

They day of December, 2013

If. AVNTEDENFIELD, JUD9V
UNITED STATES DISTRICTOURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ('EORGIi