Wilder v. Ault

Filing 30

ORDER re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Mark Antonio Wilder. The petitioners 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application is denied. A certificate of appealability is denied. Signed by Chief Judge Linda R Reade on 5/7/12. (ksy)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
EASTERN DIVISION

MARK ANTONIO WILDER
Petitioner,

No. C09-2021-LRR

vs.
ORDER

JOHN AULT,
Respondent.
____________________________

This matter appears before the court on the petitioner’s application for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (docket no. 1). On April 8, 2009, the
petitioner submitted his application for a writ of habeas corpus. On April 23, 2009, the
court directed the respondent to address the petitioner’s claims (docket no. 5). On May
13, 2009, the respondent complied with the court’s order by filing a motion for partial
summary judgment (docket no. 11) and an answer (docket no. 12).

On May 14, 2009,

the respondent also notified the court that he had submitted relevant state court documents.
On February 10, 2010, the court granted the respondent’s motion for partial summary
judgment, dismissed the majority of the petitioner’s claims and ordered the parties to brief
the two remaining claims (docket no. 14). On February 15, 2010, the respondent
supplemented the record by filing an appendix (docket no. 16). On March 23, 2010,
counsel for the petitioner filed a motion to withdraw (docket no. 22), and, on March 24,
2010, counsel for the petitioner filed a brief in which he attempted to present anything in
the record that might arguably support his request for relief (docket no. 23). On April 19,
2010, the respondent filed a response brief (docket no. 27). On May 10, 2010, the
petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed an objection and resistance to counsel’s patently

implausible and unrealistic brief (docket no. 28). On January 7, 2011, counsel for the
petitioner asked the court to consider additional arguments that the petitioner sought to
advance (docket no. 29). The court now turns to consider the petitioner’s application for
a writ of habeas corpus.
With respect to whether an evidentiary hearing is warranted, 28 U.S.C. §
2254(e)(2) provides:
(2) If the applicant has failed to develop the factual basis of a
claim in State court proceedings, the court shall not hold an
evidentiary hearing on the claim unless the applicant shows
that—
(A) the claim relies on—
(i) a new rule of constitutional law, made
retroactive to cases on collateral review by the
Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable;
or
(ii) a factual predicate that could not have been
previously discovered through the exercise of
due diligence; and
(B) the facts underlying the claim would be sufficient to
establish by clear and convincing evidence that but for
constitutional error, no reasonable fact finder would
have found the applicant guilty of the underlying
offense.
28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2). Due to the limits set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2), the court
concludes that an evidentiary hearing is not warranted. See Smith v. Bowersox, 311 F.3d

915, 921 (8th Cir. 2002) (discussing constraints on district court’s discretion to hold an
evidentiary hearing); Hall v. Luebbers, 296 F.3d 685, 700 (8th Cir. 2002) (discussing
standard for conducting an evidentiary hearing under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2)); Kinder v.
Bowersox, 272 F.3d 532, 542 (8th Cir. 2001) (finding it was proper for district court not
to hold an evidentiary hearing because the petitioner did not meet the requirements of 28
U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2)); Parker v. Kemna, 260 F.3d 852, 854 (8th Cir. 2001) (same);
Hatcher v. Hopkins, 256 F.3d 761, 764 (8th Cir. 2001) (same); cf. Johnston v. Luebbers,

2

288 F.3d 1048, 1058-60 (8th Cir. 2002) (assuming that 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2) did not bar
the district court from granting an evidentiary hearing and denying the petitioner an
evidentiary hearing because such a hearing would not assist in the resolution of his claim).
With respect to the merits of the petitioner’s claims, the court deems it appropriate
to deny the application for a writ of habeas corpus for the reasons stated in the response
brief that the respondent filed because it adequately sets forth the law that is applicable to
the petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus. The court concludes that the
petitioner’s sufficiency of the evidence claim and confrontation claim are without merit.
The Iowa courts’ adjudication of the petitioner’s claims neither resulted in a decision
contrary to clearly established federal law nor involved an unreasonable application of
clearly established federal law; and (2) the Iowa courts’ rulings did not result in a decision
that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the introduced
evidence. Because no violation of any of the petitioner’s constitutional rights occurred,
relief is not available under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). And, to the extent that the petitioner
desires to raise additional claims, they have previously been addressed by the court and/or
are procedurally defaulted. Accordingly, the petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas
corpus shall be denied.
In a habeas proceeding before a district judge, the final order shall be subject to
review, on appeal, by the court of appeals for the circuit in which the proceeding is held.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(a).

Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of

appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals. See 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(1)(A). A district court possesses the authority to issue certificates of appealability
under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) and Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). See Tiedeman v. Benson, 122 F.3d
518, 522 (8th Cir. 1997). Under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), a certificate of appealability
may only issue if a petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36, 123 S. Ct. 1029,
154 L. Ed. 2d 931 (2003); Garrett v. United States, 211 F.3d 1075, 1076-77 (8th Cir.
3

2000); Carter v. Hopkins, 151 F.3d 872, 873-74 (8th Cir. 1998); Cox v. Norris, 133 F.3d
565, 569 (8th Cir. 1997); Tiedeman, 122 F.3d at 523. To make such a showing, the issues
must be debatable among reasonable jurists, a court could resolve the issues differently,
or the issues deserve further proceedings. Cox, 133 F.3d at 569 (citing Flieger v. Delo,
16 F.3d 878, 882-83 (8th Cir. 1994)); see also Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 335-36 (reiterating
standard).
Courts reject constitutional claims either on the merits or on procedural grounds.
“‘[W]here a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, the showing
required to satisfy [28 U.S.C.] § 2253(c) is straightforward: the petitioner must
demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the
constitutional claims debatable or wrong.’” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 338 (quoting Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S. Ct. 1595, 146 L. Ed. 2d 542 (2000)). When a
federal habeas petition is dismissed on procedural grounds without reaching the underlying
constitutional claim, “the [petitioner must show], 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.” See Slack, 529 U.S. at 484.
Having thoroughly reviewed the record in this case, the court finds that the
petitioner failed to make the requisite “substantial showing” with respect to the claims that
he raised. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Because there is no
debatable question as to the resolution of this case, an appeal is not warranted.
Accordingly, the court shall not grant a certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253.
If the petitioner desires further review of his claims, he may request issuance of the
certificate of appealability by a circuit judge of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in
accordance with Tiedeman, 122 F.3d at 520-22.

4

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1) The petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application (docket no. 1) is denied.
2) A certificate of appealability is denied.
DATED this 7th day of May, 2012.

5