Opinion
Case No. 8:10-CV-103-T-30TBM.
August 23, 2010
ORDER
Before the Court is Petitioner's Motion Requesting Certificate of Appealability (Dkt. 12). "A certificate of appealability may issue . . . only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make such a showing, Petitioner "must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong," Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274, 282 (2004) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), or that "the issues presented were `adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.'" Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n. 4 (1983)).
When the Court dismissed Petitioner's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely, it also determined that Petitioner was not entitled to a certificate of appealability (see Dkt. 10 at pgs. 8-9). Nothing in Petitioner's motion for a certificate of appealability convinces the Court that Petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
The Court also determined that even if Petitioner's petition had been timely, his substantive claim was without merit (Dkt. 10 at pgs. 7-8).
See Rule 11(a), Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases under Section 2254 (2010) ("The district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.").
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that Petitioner's Motion Requesting Certificate of Appealability (Dkt. 12) is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida.