Opinion
5:24-cv-00002-MR
02-09-2024
CHAD EDWARD CAMPBELL, Petitioner, v. PAZAVAR PRIEST, Acting Warden, Respondent.
ORDER
Martin Reidinger Chief United States District Judge.
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the pro se Motion for Certificate of Appealability filed by Chad Edward Campbell (the “Petitioner”) on February 6, 2024. [Doc. 6].
The Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in this Court on January 2, 2024. [Doc. 1]. The Court entered an Order on January 22, 2024 dismissing the petition as procedurally barred for failure to exhaust his available state remedies. [Doc. 3]. In that Order, the Court also declined to grant the Petitioner a certificate of appealability pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. [Id.].
The Petitioner now moves this Court to issue a certificate of appealability. [Doc. 6]. In doing so, the Petitioner reiterates the arguments set forth in his § 2254 petition. [Id.].
As the Court has previously advised the Petitioner, 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); see Rule 11(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. A petitioner must show that reasonable jurists could debate whether the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 338 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000). The Court has already set forth its reasoning for the dismissal of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and explained why it declined to issue a certificate of appealability. [Doc. 8]. The Petitioner sets forth no new arguments to convince the Court that it should reconsider its prior Order and now issue a certificate of appealability.
IT IS, THERFORE, ORDERED that the Petitioner's Motion for Certificate of Appealability [Doc. 6] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.