King v. Houston et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Donnell King shall have until March 6, 2012, to file a motion for Certificate of Appealability and brief in support. In the event that King fails to file a motion and brief, as set forth in this Memorandum and Order Regarding Notice of Appeal, the court will deny the issuance of a Certificate of Appealability without further notice. The clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management in this case with the following text: March 6, 2012: check for filing of motion for Certificate of Appealability. Ordered by Senior Judge Warren K. Urbom. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (AOA)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
ROBERT P. HOUSTON, Director,
and DENNIS BAKEWELL, Warden, )
AND ORDER REGARDING
NOTICE OF APPEAL
On January 23, 2012, I dismissed Donnell King’s habeas corpus claims and
entered judgment against him. (Filing Nos. 25 and 26.) On January 31, 2012,
Donnell King (King), the petitioner, filed a Notice of Appeal. (Filing No. 27.)
However, before King may appeal the dismissal of his Petition Under 18
U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus, a “Certificate of Appealability” must issue.
Pursuant to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”),
the right to appeal such a dismissal is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), which states:
(c)(1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals
the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the
detention complained of arises out of process issued by a
State court; . . . .
A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only
if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a
The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate
which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by
A certificate of appealability may issue only if the applicant has made a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(2). Such a showing requires a demonstration “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)
(internal quotation marks omitted), citing Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 894 (1983)
(defining pre-AEDPA standard for a certificate of probable cause to appeal).
King has not filed a motion for a Certificate of Appealability or a brief in
support. (See Docket Sheet.) Thus, this matter cannot proceed on appeal until the
question of the certificate of appealability is considered.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
Donnell King shall have until March 6, 2012, to file a motion for
Certificate of Appealability and brief in support.
In the event that King fails to file a motion and brief, as set forth in this
Memorandum and Order Regarding Notice of Appeal, the court will deny the
issuance of a Certificate of Appealability without further notice.
Similarly, Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b), as amended by the AEDPA,
indicates that in an action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a notice of appeal triggers
the requirement that the district judge who rendered the judgment either issue a
certificate of appealability or state the reasons why such a certificate should not issue.
See generally Tiedeman v. Benson, 122 F.3d 518, 521 (8th Cir. 1997).
The clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management in this
case with the following text: March 6, 2012: check for filing of motion for Certificate
Dated February 6, 2012.
BY THE COURT
s/ Warren K. Urbom
United States Senior District Judge
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?