Rodgers v. State of Ohio et al
Filing
90
ORDER denying 88 Motion to Strike. The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge Gregory L. Frost on 1/30/15. (kn)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
OTIS LEE RODGERS,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action 2:14-cv-453
Judge Frost
Magistrate Judge King
vs.
STATE OF OHIO, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
Final judgment dismissing this action has been entered.
ECF No. 85; Judgment, ECF No. 86.
Order,
Accordingly, petitioner’s motion to
strike respondent’s filing, ECF No. 88, is DENIED as moot.
Petitioner has filed a notice of appeal.
Notice of Appeal, ECF
No. 89. When a habeas 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). See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000) (recognizing codification of Barefoot in 28 U.S.C §
2253(c)(2)). 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.’” Slack, 529 U.S. at 484 (quoting Barefoot, 463 U.S. at 893,
n. 4).
1
Upon review of the record, this Court is not persuaded that
reasonable jurists could debate whether petitioner’s claims
should have been resolved differently. The Court therefore
DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability.
/s/
Gregory L. Frost
Gregory L. Frost
United States 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?