Colvin v. Tanner
Certificate of Appealability Denied by USDC. Signed by Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown on 3/21/2017.(mmv)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JOHN W. COLVIN
ROBERT C. TANNER
“A COA [Certificate of Appealability] will issue only if the requirements of [28 U.S.C.]
§ 2253 have been satisfied.”1 Section 2253(c) permits issuance of a COA when “a petitioner has
made a ‘substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.’”2 “Under this standard, when
a district court denies habeas relief by rejecting constitutional claims on their merits, ‘the petitioner
must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the
constitutional claims debatable or wrong.’”3 When the district court denies the petition on procedural
grounds without reaching the merits, the petitioner must show “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
The petitioner must demonstrate “‘something more than the absence of frivolity or the
existence of mere ‘good faith’ on his or her part.’”5 However, a COA should not be denied “merely
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003).
Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)).
McGowen v. Thaler, 675 F.3d 482, 498 (5th Cir. 2012) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
Id. (quoting Slack, 529 U.S. at 484).
Id. (quoting Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 338).
because [the court] believes the applicant will not demonstrate an entitlement to relief.”6 In addition
“any doubts as to whether a COA should be granted are resolved in the petitioner’s favor,”7 and the
severity of the penalty may be a consideration in deciding whether a petitioner has made a
In the instant case, Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right for the reasons set forth in this Court’s Order and Reasons. Further, the issues
would not engender debate among reasonable jurists. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability is DENIED.
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this ________ day of March, 2017.
NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Id. (quoting Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 337).
See id.; Hill v. Johnson, 2010 F.3d 481 484 (5th Cir. 2000) (“[W]e may consider the severity of his
penalty in determining whether he has met his ‘substantial showing’ burden.”).
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?