Clark v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority et al

Filing 12

OPINION AND ORDER - order denying a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge James L. Graham on 5/10/2017. (ds)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION LEODIUS CLARK, Petitioner, v. CASE NO. 2:16-CV-00204 2:16-CV-00413 2:16-CV-00414 JUDGE JAMES L. GRAHAM Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY, et al., Respondent. OPINION AND ORDER On March 17, 2017, Judgment was entered dismissing this consolidated action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s April 17, 2017, Notice of Appeal, which the Court construes as a request for a certificate of appealability. For the reasons that follow, Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability is DENIED. Petitioner asserts that the Ohio Adult Parole Authority has violated the Double Jeoopardy Clause and various administrative codes by illegally continuing his confinement in December 2015 for three years; and that the Department of Rehabilitation and correction lacks the authority to continue to restrain him, as he has completed his “EDS” in Mahoning County Case Number 11CR1078. He additionally seeks monetary damages. The Court dismissed Petitioner’s claims on the merits. “In contrast to an ordinary civil litigant, a state prisoner who seeks a writ of habeas corpus in federal court holds no automatic right to appeal from an adverse decision by a district court.” Jordan v. Fisher, -- U.S. --. --, 135 S.Ct. 2647, 2650 (2015); 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(requiring a habeas petitioner to obtain a certificate of appealability in order to appeal.) The petitioner must establish the 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, 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). The Court is not persuaded that reasonable jurists would debate whether the Court properly dismissed Petitioner’s claims as lacking in merit. Therefore, Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: May 10, 2017 ____s/James L. Graham______ JAMES L. GRAHAM 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?