AHMED v. LAUGHLIN

Filing 22

ORDER denying 21 Motion for Certificate of Appealability. Signed by District Judge R. Stan Baker on 01/08/2021. (JH)

Case 6:18-cv-00046-RSB-BWC Document 22 Filed 01/08/21 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
STATESBORO DIVISION

ELWALEED AHMED,
Petitioner,

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:18-cv-046

v.
VANCE LAUGHLIN,
Respondent.

ORDER
On January 24, 2020, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending the dismissal of Petitioner Elwaleed Ahmed’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254
petition on three grounds: (1) Ahmed did not show the state courts’ adjudications on the sufficiency
of evidence and on a motion to suppress evidence were contrary to or an unreasonable application
of clearly established federal law and thus not entitled to deference under § 2254(d); (2) Ahmed’s
invalid indictment claim was barred by Georgia’s successive petition rule; and (3) Ahmed’s
ineffective assistance of counsel claim was defaulted under Georgia law. (See generally doc. 17.)
Thereafter, the Court reviewed the objections that Ahmed had filed, (see doc. 18), and determined
that they were not responsive to the Report and Recommendation, and it thus proceeded to adopt
the Report and Recommendation on February 18, 2020, and the case was dismissed. (Doc. 19.)
At the conclusion of the Adoption Order, the Court denied Petitioner a Certificate of Appealability.
(Id. at p. 2.) Thereafter, Petitioner filed a Motion for a Certificate of Appealability, which is
presently pending before the Court. (Doc. 21.) As the Motion presents arguments not specifically
addressed in the Court’s Adoption Order, the Court will again consider whether to grant a

Case 6:18-cv-00046-RSB-BWC Document 22 Filed 01/08/21 Page 2 of 3

Certificate of Appealability. For the following reasons, the Court again DENIES Petitioner a
Certificate of Appealability.
The decision to issue a Certificate of Appealability requires “an overview of the claims in
the habeas petition and a general assessment of their merits.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,
336 (2003). In order to obtain a Certificate of Appealability, a petitioner must show “that jurists
of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that
jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed
further.” Id. at 327. “Where a plain procedural bar is present and the district court is correct to
invoke it to dispose of the case, a reasonable jurist could not conclude either that the district court
erred in dismissing the petition or that the petitioner should be allowed to proceed further.” Slack
v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
In his Motion, Petitioner continues his oft-repeated argument that the trial court committed
“harmful error” by denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained in what he claims was an
illegal search of an apartment. (Doc. 21, pp. 1–2.) Specifically, he argues that evidence showed
that the search was performed without consent and without a warrant having been obtained. (Id.
at p. 2.) He asserts that the United States Magistrate Judge “did everything he could to deny [his
petition] when the federal Constitution gives [him] this right against unreasonable search and
seizure.” (Id. at p. 3.) He requests a Certificate of Appealability so that he may “submit documents
of proof [that] the [law enforcement] agents entered the apartment illegally [and] searched the
apartment” before obtaining a warrant. (Id.)
These arguments do not support a finding that jurists of reason could disagree with this
Court’s determination that Ahmed failed to show that the state courts’ adjudications on the motion
to suppress were contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law (and

2

Case 6:18-cv-00046-RSB-BWC Document 22 Filed 01/08/21 Page 3 of 3

thus not entitled to deference) nor do they support a finding that such jurists could disagree with
the Court’s determinations that the invalid indictment claim was barred by Georgia’s successive
petition rule and the ineffective assistance of counsel claim was defaulted under Georgia law.
Finally, these arguments do not support a finding that reasonable jurists could conclude the issues
presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.
In light of the foregoing and for the reasons provided in the Report and Recommendation
and the Adoption Order, the Court again DENIES Petitioner a Certificate of Appealability. (Doc.
21.)
SO ORDERED, this 8th day of January, 2021.

R. STAN BAKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

3