Dantzler v. United States of America

Filing 12

ORDER denying 10 Motion for Certificate of Appealability. Signed by Judge G. Patrick Murphy on 02/05/2009. (njr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS WILLIE G. DANTZLER Petitioner/Defendant, vs. UNITED STATES of AMERICA , Respondent/Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CIVIL NO. 07-cv-824-GPM CRIMINAL NO. 02-cr-30023-GPM

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MURPHY, District Judge: Petitioner, Willie G. Dantzler, has appealed this Court's final judgment which dismissed his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion (see Docs. 7, 8); now he seeks a certificate of appealability (see Doc. 9). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, "Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from . . . the final order in a proceeding under section 2255." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides, in pertinent part: [I]n a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding, the applicant cannot take an appeal unless a circuit justice or a circuit or district judge issues a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). If an applicant files a notice of appeal, the district judge who rendered the judgment must either issue a certificate of appealability or state why a certificate should not issue. The district clerk must send the certificate or statement to the court of appeals with the notice of appeal and the file of the district-court proceedings. If the district judge has denied the certificate, the applicant may request a circuit judge to issue the certificate. Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1). "A certificate of appealability may issue . . . only if the applicant has made a substantial

Page 1 of 2

showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). See also Young v. United States, 124 F.3d 794, 798-99 (7th Cir. 1997); Nunez v. United States, 96 F.3d 990, 991-92 (7th Cir. 1996). A substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right for purposes of the statute means 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." Dalton v. Battaglia, 402 F.3d 729, 738 (7th Cir. 2005) (quoting Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003)). Cf. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000); Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 & n.4 (1983); Rodriguez v. United States, 286 F.3d 972, 978 (7th Cir. 2002); Ouska v. Cahill-Masching, 246 F.3d 1036, 1046 (7th Cir. 2001); Rutledge v. United States, 230 F.3d 1041, 1047 (7th Cir. 2000). Petitioner's motion was dismissed because the Court found it to be untimely. The Court cannot find that he has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, and therefore his request for a certificate of appealability will be denied. To conclude, the motion for a certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (Doc. 9) is DENIED. Pursuant to Rule 22(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; Petitioner may renew his request for a certificate of appealability in the Court of Appeals. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: 2/5/09 s/ ZA ctàÜ|v~ `âÜÑ{ç G. Patrick Murphy United States District Judge

Page 2 of 2