Ross v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections et al

Filing 90

Certificate of Appealability Denied re 86 MOTION for Certificate of Appealability. Signed by Honorable David L. Russell on 8/25/15. (jw)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA ARMOND DAVIS ROSS, Petitioner, v. WARDEN ADDISON, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CIV-13-323-R ORDER This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s Application for Certificate of Appealability [Doc. No. 86]. Petitioner is entitled to a certificate of appealability (COA), only upon making a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Where a habeas petition is denied on procedural grounds, Petitioner is entitled to a COA only if he demonstrates that “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S. Ct. 1595, 146 L. Ed. 2d 542 (2000). Where a habeas petition is denied on the merits, Petitioner is entitled to a COA only if he demonstrates “that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 154 L. Ed. 2d 931, 944 (2003)(citing Slack v. McDaniel, supra). Petitioner has not made either showing and is therefore not entitled to a COA. Petitioner’s application therefor is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of August, 2015. 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?