Opinion
C/A No.: 4:08-cv-03984-GRA.
December 10, 2009
ORDER (Written Opinion)
This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of this Court's Order filed February 12, 2009, which dismissed Petitioner's request for habeas relief without prejudice for failure to provide the Court with necessary documents within a proscribed period of time.
Petitioner brings this claim pro se. This Court is required to construe pro se pleadings liberally. Such pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. See Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). This Court is charged with liberally construing a pleading filed by a pro se litigant to allow for the development of a potentially meritorious claim. See Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982).
After a review of the record, this Court finds that its prior decision was and is correct as a matter of law. Consequently, this Court must deny Petitioner's motion.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
On December 1, 2009, the Rules Governing Section 2254 and 2255 Cases in the United States District Courts were amended to require a District Court to issue or deny a certificate of appealability when a final ruling on a habeas petition is issued. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Rule 11(a); 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Rule 11(a). This amendment also encompasses motions to reconsider final rulings on habeas petitions. See U.S. v. Haynes, No. 09-7606, 2009 WL 4506466 (4th Cir. Dec. 9, 2009).
(c)(2) A certificate of appealability may issue . . . only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
(c)(3) The certificate of appealability . . . shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find this court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). In this case, the legal standard for the issuance of a certificate of appealability has not been met. Therefore, a certificate of appealability is DENIED.