Bettison v. Bell

Filing 14

ORDER Denying Certificate of Appealability. Signed by District Judge David M. Lawson. (DTof)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RAYMOND BETTISON,
Petitioner,
v.

Case Number 10-12358
Honorable David M. Lawson

THOMAS K. BELL,
Respondent.
________________________________________/
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
The petitioner, Raymond Bettison, filed an application for the writ of habeas corpus,
claiming that the revocation of his parole term violated his constitutional rights to due process, equal
protection of the law, an impartial adjudicator, and access to the courts. The Court found that the
claims were rendered moot by the petitioner’s re-release on parole and that the Court lacked
jurisdiction to consider the merits of his claims.
Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts:
The district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a
final order adverse to the applicant. . . . If the court issues a certificate, the court must
state the specific issue or issues that satisfy the showing required by 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(2). If the court denies a certificate, a party may not appeal the denial but
may seek a certificate from the court of appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 22.
Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.
A certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing
of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Courts must either issue a certificate
of appealability indicating which issues satisfy the required showing or provide reasons why such

a certificate should not issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); In re Certificates of
Appealability, 106 F.3d 1306, 1307 (6th Cir. 1997). To receive a certificate of appealability, “a
petitioner must show 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.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003)
(internal quotes and citations omitted).
The Court now concludes that the petition no longer satisfies the case or controversy
requirement of Article III of the Constitution and that reasonable jurists could not debate the
correctness of the Court’s decision. Therefore, the Court will deny a certificate of appealability.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
s/David M. Lawson
DAVID M. LAWSON
United States District Judge
Dated: October 4, 2012

PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served
upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first
class U.S. mail on October 4, 2012.
s/Deborah R. Tofil
DEBORAH R. TOFIL

-2-