Mandeville v. Gaffney

Filing 40

Judge George A. OToole, Jr: ORDER entered. re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (28:2254) filed by R.H Mandeville. (de Oliveira, Flaviana)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-11477-GAO
R.H. MANDEVILLE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIN GAFFNEY,
Respondent.
ORDER
March 10, 2023
O’TOOLE, D.J.
Under Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings, the Court must “issue
or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” The
Court may only issue a certificate of appealability if the petitioner has “made a substantial showing
of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Such a showing requires
establishing “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.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)
(quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 (1983)).
Rae Herman Mandeville’s fourth habeas petition—like his previous three—contains
unexhausted claims. He has not shown good cause for his failure to exhaust and still does not
appear to understand the requirement. (See, e.g., Pet.’s Resp. to Second Mot. to Dismiss at 28
(“One need not point out a Federal issue in a State Court [] before bring[ing] a Federal issue.”)
(dkt. no. 37).)

Dismissal is the only appropriate outcome in this case. Accordingly, the Court denies a certificate
of appealability as to all claims in Mandeville’s latest petition.
It is SO ORDERED.
/s/ George A. O’Toole, Jr.
United States District Judge

2