Arhebamen v. Bice
Filing
15
ORDER Denying Certificate of Appealability. Signed by District Judge David M. Lawson. (DTof)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MARK ARHEBAMEN,
Petitioner,
Case Number 12-10029
Honorable David M. Lawson
v.
ROBIN BAKER, District Director, Bureau
of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement,
Respondent.
__________________________________________/
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
The petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on January 4, 2012. On September
28, 2012, the Court entered an order determining that the petition presented a claim challenging the
conditions of confinement that was not cognizable on habeas review, the relief the petitioner sought
was not a remedy available for a claim challenging conditions of confinement, and the petitioner’s
claims appeared to lack merit. On this basis, the Court entered judgment against the petitioner.
Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings, which was amended
as of December 1, 2009:
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, Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings.
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 finds that reasonable jurists could not debate whether the petition presented a
claim challenging the conditions of confinement that was not cognizable on habeas review or the
relief the petitioner sought was not a remedy available for a claim challenging conditions of
confinement. Therefore, the Court will deny a certificate of appealability on these issues.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
s/David M. Lawson
DAVID M. LAWSON
United States District Judge
Dated: October 1, 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 1, 2012.
s/Deborah R. Tofil
DEBORAH R. TOFIL
-2-
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?