Hairston v. Warden Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
Filing
23
ORDER denying 21 Motion for Certificate of Appealability. Signed by Judge Algenon L. Marbley on 12/7/2011. (cw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
MARQUIS HAIRSTON,
Petitioner,
v.
CASE NO. 2:09-CV-00978
JUDGE MARBLEY
MAGISTRATE JUDGE ABEL
PHILLIP KERNS, WARDEN,
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER
On August 19, 2011, final judgment was issued dismissing the instant petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s
September 19, 2011, request for a certificate of appealability. For the reasons that follow,
Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability, Doc. 21, is DENIED.
As his sole ground for habeas corpus relief, Petitioner asserts that his sentence of 134 years
incarceration on three aggravated robberies violates the Eighth Amendment. This Court dismissed
that claim on the merits.
When a claim has been denied on the merits, a certificate of appealability may issue only if
the petitioner "has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(2). This standard is a codification of Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983). Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000). To make a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right, 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.'" Id. (citing Barefoot, 463
U.S., at 893, and n.4).
The Court is not persuaded that Petitioner has met this standard here. Petitioner’s request
for a certificate of appealabiltiy, Doc. 21, therefore is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Algenon L. Marbley
ALGENON L. MARBLEY
United States District Judge
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?