United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
August 10, 2004.
JAMES GIBSON, Plaintiff,
STEPHEN D. MOTE and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Lisa Madigan, Defendants.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: CHARLES KOCORAS, District Judge
This matter comes before the court on James Gibson's ("Gibson")
application for a certificate of appealability pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). For the reasons set forth below, the
application is denied.
James Gibson is currently incarcerated at the Pontiac
Correctional Center in Pontiac, Illinois, as a result of his 1991
conviction for first degree murder. On May 18, 2004, we denied
Gibson's petition for a writ of habeas corpus which alleged
ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct.
On July 6, 2004, we denied Gibson's motion asking us to
reconsider certain holdings from our denial of his petition. Gibson now wishes to appeal our decisions, 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.
A court may issue a certificate of appealability for a decision
denying 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.
Gibson's present application does not persuade us that other
jurists would resolve his ineffective assistance of counsel
claims differently. Instead he merely rehashes the same arguments
contained in his habeas petition and subsequent motion for
reconsideration. The same can be said of his claims concerning
prosecutorial misconduct. Nor do we find that Gibson's
application alleges constitutional deprivations beyond the ones
that we firmly rejected in our previous opinions. We accordingly find that his present application does not merit
certification to the appellate court under the Rutledge
For the reasons set forth above, Gibson's application for a
certificate of appealability is denied.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.