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.)

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