Bramwell v. F C I McDowell

Filing 18

ORDER denying 17 Motion for Certificate of Appealability re 16 Notice of Appeal. Signed by Chief Judge Robert G James on 7/25/12. (crt,Lundy, N)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONROE DIVISION

MARLON P. BRAMWELL

CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-0078

VERSUS

JUDGE ROBERT G. JAMES

STATE OF LOUISIANA

MAG. JUDGE KAREN L.HAYES

MEMORANDUM ORDER
On January 13, 2012, Petitioner Marlon P. Bramwell (“Bramwell”) filed a Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In his Petition, Bramwell attacks his
December 6, 1989 convictions for drugs offenses in State of Louisiana v. Marlon P. Bramwell,
Docket No. 48,831, Fourth Judicial District Court, Parish of Ouachita, State of Louisiana.
On March 13, 2012, Magistrate Judge Hayes issued a Report and Recommendation [Doc.
No. 8] in which she recommended that the Court find that Bramwell’s Petition was a second and
successive petition for writ of habeas corpus and that the Court transfer the Petition to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit because Bramwell had not obtained authorization to
file the Petition. On June 8, 2012, the Court adopted the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge and transferred Bramwell’s Petition to the Fifth Circuit, where it remains
pending. [Doc. No. 12].
On June 25, 2012, Bramwell filed a pleading styled, “PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE
OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 59 [sic] (e)” (“Rule 59(e) Motion”) [Doc. No. 13]. On June 28, 2012,
the Court denied Bramwell’s Rule 59(e) Motion because he failed to present any manifest errors
of law or fact or newly discovered evidence.

On July 23, 2012, the Clerk of Court received a notice of appeal [Doc. No. 16] of the
Court’s June 28, 2012 Memorandum Order, which Bramwell signed and dated July 20, 2012.
On the same day, July 23, 2012, the Clerk of Court also received “MOVANT’S PRO SE
APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY” (“Application for COA”) [Doc.
No. 17]. An appealable collateral order has been filed in the above-captioned case. Therefore,
after having considered the record, the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and In re Bradford,
660 F.3d 226 (5th Cir. 2011),
IT IS ORDERED that the Application for COA is DENIED because the applicant has
failed to demonstrate a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
MONROE, LOUISIANA, this 25th day of July, 2012.