Jackson v. Martin

Filing 20

ORDER. Signed by Honorable Robin J. Cauthron on 01/07/21. (wh)

Download PDF
Case 5:20-cv-00826-C Document 20 Filed 01/07/21 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA JOSEPH JACKSON, Petitioner, vs. JIMMY MARTIN, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CIV-20-826-C ORDER In accordance with the Tenth Circuit’s limited remand, the Court considers whether Petitioner is entitled to a Certificate of Appealability (“COA”). In the appellate court, Petitioner seeks review of the Court’s denial of his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Because Petitioner is a state prisoner, 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) requires that a Certificate of Appealability be granted prior to consideration of his claims by the appellate court. See Montez v. McKinna, 208 F.3d 862, 869 (10th Cir. 2000) (holding that § 2253(c)(1)(A) requires a state prisoner to obtain a COA regardless of whether he is seeking relief under § 2254 or under § 2241). A petitioner is entitled to a COA only upon making a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Petitioner can make such a showing by demonstrating that the issues he seeks to raise are deserving of further proceedings, debatable among jurists of reason, 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 Case 5:20-cv-00826-C Document 20 Filed 01/07/21 Page 2 of 2 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. Here, Petitioner has not made this requisite showing. As Judge Erwin noted in the Report and Recommendation, Petitioner’s has failed to state a valid 28 U.S.C. § 2241 claim. Accordingly, Petitioner will not be granted a Certificate of Appealability. For the reasons stated herein, the Court finds Petitioner has failed to demonstrate he is entitled to a COA. Accordingly, his Notice of Appeal (Dkt. No. 16), which is construed as an Application for Certificate of Appealability, is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of January, 2021. 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?