Jackson v. Martin

Filing 20

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

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