Opinion
03 C 6978.
June 29, 2004
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter comes before the court on Craig Armstrong's ("Armstrong") application for a certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). For the reasons set forth below, the application is denied.
BACKGROUND
The factual background for this case can be found in our prior opinion of Armstrong v. Bigley, 2004 WL 1064739 (N.D. Ill. 2004). In that decision, we dismissed Armstrong's petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a writ of habeas on the grounds that Armstrong had already been released from prison and failed to allege "collateral consequences" resulting from his parole violation and subsequent imprisonment. Armstrong now wishes to appeal that decision, but appellate proceedings cannot commence without a certificate of appealability either from this court or from a circuit judge of the Court of Appeals. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed.R.App.Proc. 22(b).
DISCUSSION
A court may issue a certificate of appealability for a decision dismissing a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus "only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). In order to make this showing, the applicant must demonstrate "that reasonable jurists could debate whether the challenges in his habeas petition should have been resolved differently or that his petition adequately shows a sufficient chance of the denial of a constitutional right that he deserves encouragement to proceed further." Rutledge v. U.S., 230 F.3d 1041, 1047 (7th Cir. 2000).
Armstrong makes no argument why another court would reach a different conclusion and does not contend that he has been deprived of a constitutional right subsequent to our dismissal of his petition. Nor has Armstrong alleged that he has returned to prison or suffered any collateral consequences from his earlier incarceration. We accordingly find that his present application does not merit certification to the appellate court under theRutledge standard.