Harris v. Carpenter

Filing 291

ORDER denying 279 Petitioner's Rule 59(e) MOTION. The Court CERTIFIES that any appeal taken from this action would not be taken in good faith, and would be frivolous. Therefore, any application by petitioner for leave to proc eed in forma pauperis on appeal is DENIED. If any appeal is taken from this action, such notice will be treated as an application for a certificate of appealability, which is hereby DENIED. Signed by District Judge R Leon Jordan on March 10, 2015. (AYB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
EDWARD LEROY HARRIS,
Petitioner,
v.

WAYNE CARPENTER, Warden,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.: 3:97-CV-407

ORDER
For the reasons stated in the memorandum opinion accompanying this order, petitioner
Edward Leroy Harris’ (“petitioner”) Rule 59(e) motion is DENIED [Doc. 279].
Additionally, the Court has reviewed the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and
Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and hereby CERTIFIES that any appeal
taken from this action would not be taken in good faith, and would be frivolous. Therefore, any
application by petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is DENIED. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24.
To grant a Certificate of Appealability (“COA”), the Court must find a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When a claim has been
dismissed on the merits, a substantial showing is made if reasonable jurists could conclude the
issues raised are adequate to deserve further review. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,
327, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

When a claim has been

dismissed on procedural grounds, a substantial showing is demonstrated when it is shown

reasonable jurists would debate whether a valid claim has been stated and whether the court’s
procedural ruling is correct.
Upon review of the record, the Court finds that reasonable jurists could not conclude that
petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim is adequate to deserve further review. See 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c); see also Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. Accordingly, if any appeal is taken from this
action, such notice will be treated as an application for a certificate of appealability, which is
hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTER:

______

s/ Leon Jordan____________
United States District Judge

2