Sellers v. Young

Filing 14

ORDER denying 11 Motion for Reconsideration; and the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by District Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 10/7/13. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(ejb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:13-cv-104-RJC
GREGORY LEE SELLERS,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
REUBEN F. YOUNG,
)
Secretary of Corrections,
)
)
Respondent.
)
______________________________)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner’s motion to reconsider the denial of
his habeas petition, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, or in the alternate, for a certificate of
appealability. (Doc. No. 11).
In its Order denying habeas relief, the Court examined Petitioner’s § 2254 motion in
detail and considered the response filed by the Respondent. Following this review, the Court
concluded that Petitioner’s § 2254 motion was clearly time-barred, and further, that Petitioner
had failed to present a reasonable argument which might serve to equitably toll the statute of
limitations. See (Doc. No. 9: Order at 4-5). In his motion to reconsider, the Petitioner again
renews his argument that his delay in filing may be attributable to state counsel. However, this
argument is again rejected. It is the petitioner’s obligation to diligently pursue his habeas
remedies and Petitioner’s present arguments are simply unavailing as the facts he relies upon in
support of habeas relief were or should have been known to him at the time he entered his guilty
plea in January, 2008.
For the reasons stated in the Court’s July 9th Order, (Doc. No. 9), and based on the
1

reasons set forth herein, Petitioner’s motion to reconsider is denied, as is his motion for a
certificate of appealability.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. (Doc. No. 11).
2.

Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the Court
declines to issue a certificate of appealability as Petitioner has not made a substantial
showing of a denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003) (in order to satisfy § 2253(c), a petitioner must
demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the
constitutional claims debatable or wrong); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 474, 484
(2000) (holding that when relief is denied on procedural grounds, a petitioner must
establish both that the correctness of the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable,
and that the petition states a debatably valid claim of the denial of a constitutional
right).

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: October 7, 2013

2