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)

Download PDF
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?