Opinion
Case No. 5:05-cv-222-Oc-10GRJ.
May 30, 2006
ORDER
The Petitioner, a state prisoner sentenced to death, previously filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which the Court denied by its Order entered on May 3, 2006 (Doc. 22). The case now comes before the Court for consideration of the Petitioner's Application for Certificate of Appealability (Doc. 26).
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b)(1), the Court must either issue a certificate of appealability or state why a certificate should not issue. According to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), a certificate of appealability may issue "only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." This standard is met if the Petitioner can show that his claim "was debatable amongst jurists of reason."See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 341 (2003). "The question is the debatability of the underlying constitutional claim, not the resolution of the debate." Id. at 342.
The Petitioner applies for a certificate of appealability for all twenty-five (25) claims raised in his § 2254 petition and argues that his previous arguments, which he expands upon somewhat in his application, support a finding that the Petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, and therefore a certificate of appealability with respect to each claim should be issued. The Petitioner also applies for a certificate of appealability with respect to this Court's order granting the State's motion to dismiss the petition because it was not filed within AEDPA's one-year limitations period. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d)(1).
The Court has reviewed its disposition of the Petitioner's twenty-five claims, respectively, and finds that none involve novel issues of constitutional law or demonstrate that the Petitioner was denied a constitutional right. In addition, the Petitioner has not made a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right because the Court granted the State's motion to dismiss. Accordingly, upon due consideration, the Court finds that the Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. As such, the Petitioner's Application for a Certificate of Appealability (Doc. 26) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DONE and ORDERED.