Rwezaula v. Dowling

Filing 15

ORDER ADOPTING 11 Report and Recommendation, DENYING 1 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, DENYING a certificate of appealability. Signed by Honorable Stephen P. Friot on 8/9/2018. (llg) (Main Document 15 replaced on 8/9/2018) (llg).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JACKSON PASCAL RWEZAULA,
Petitioner,
-vsJANET DOWLING, Warden,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-17-0091-F

ORDER
Petitioner Jackson Pascal Rwezaula seeks habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254,
challenging his criminal conviction by the State of Oklahoma.
On May 22, 2018, Magistrate Judge Charles B. Goodwin entered a Report and
Recommendation recommending denial of the petition for habeas relief. Doc. no. 11 (the
Report). Petitioner objects to the Report (doc. no. 14), setting out numerous objections,
specifically, objections related to a wide variety of prosecutorial misconduct (proposition
I of petitioner’s objections); improper joinder of criminal cases1 (proposition II of
petitioner’s objections); ineffective assistance of counsel (proposition III of petitioner’s
objections); and cumulative error (proposition IV of petitioner’s objections). Petitioner
proceeds pro se and his pleadings are liberally construed.
As required by 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1), the court has reviewed the Report in its
entirety and has reviewed all objected to matters de novo. The twenty-eight page Report
addresses each of petitioner’s claims for habeas relief in detail, including all of the matters
to which petitioner now objects. Having concluded its review, the court finds that it

1

Petitioner was accused of committing four separate robberies which were initially charged as separate
criminal cases but were later joined. Petitioner was convicted on three of the four robbery counts and
was acquitted on the fourth.

agrees with the conclusions stated in the Report and that no purpose would be served by
further analysis here.
Plaintiff’s objections to the Report are DENIED. The Report and Recommendation
of the Magistrate Judge is ACCEPTED, ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. In accordance
with the Report, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED.
Movant is entitled to a certificate of appealability only upon making a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This standard is
satisfied by demonstrating that the issues movant seeks to raise are deserving of further
proceedings, debatable among jurists of reasons, or subject to different resolution on
appeal. See, Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (“[W]e give the language found
in §2253(c) the meaning ascribed it in [Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)],
with due note for the substitution of the word ‘constitutional.’”). “Where a district court
has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits,...[t]he petitioner must demonstrate
that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims debatable or wrong.” Id. When a prisoner’s habeas petition is dismissed on
procedural grounds without reaching the merits of the prisoner’s claims, “a COA should
issue when the prisoner shows, at least, 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.” Id. Petitioner has not made the requisite showing and a certificate of
appealability is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of August, 2018.

17-0091p002.docx

2