United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
January 6, 2005.
ANTHONY ENIS, Petitioner,
JAMES SCHOMIG Respondent.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: SAMUEL DER-YEGHIAYAN, District Judge
This matter is before the court on Anthony Enis' ("Enis")
request for a certificate of appealability pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). For the reasons stated below, Enis' request for a
certificate of appealability is denied.
Enis was convicted of the murder of Merlinda Entrata
("Entrata") and sentenced to death in a jury trial in the Circuit
Court of Lake County, Illinois ("trial court"). After exhausting
his state court remedies on direct appeal and in post-conviction
proceedings, Enis filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus.
On September 29, 2004, in a memorandum opinion, we denied Enis'
petition for writ of habeas corpus. Enis v. Schomig, 2004 WL
2203420 (N.D. Ill. 2004). Enis now seeks a certificate of
In order to appeal the denial of a petition for writ of habeas
corpus, a petitioner must obtain a certificate of appealability.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Montgomery v. Davis, 362 F.3d 956, 957
(7th Cir. 2004). A court should only issue a certificate of
appealability "if the applicant has made a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A
petitioner must also show that "reasonable jurists could debate
whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should
have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues
presented were `adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed
further.'" Slack v. McDonnell, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)
(quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)).
In Enis' request for a certificate of appealability, Enis
argues that this court should issue a certificate of
appealability for the following claims raised in his Petition:
claim I, relating to trial court's denial of a motion to
suppress; claim III, relating to ineffective assistance of counsel allegations; claim
IV, relating to an allegation of a due process violation; and
claim VII, relating to an allegation of a Brady violation. On
September 29, 2004, in a memorandum opinion, we denied Enis'
petition for writ of habeas corpus and extensively addressed
all of his claims, including claims I, III, IV, and VII. Enis, in
his request for certificate of appealability, has attempted to
rehash the same arguments raised in his petition for writ of
habeas corpus. Enis has failed to make a substantial showing
that he has been denied a constitutional right. Enis has also
failed to show that reasonable jurists could agree or debate that
claims I, III, IV, and VII of his petition for writ of habeas
corpus should be granted. In addition, Enis has not presented
any meritorious arguments that would indicate that the issues
presented in claims I, III, IV, and VII deserve "encouragement to
proceed further." Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. Therefore, we deny
Enis' request for a certificate of appealability.
Based on the foregoing, we deny Enis' request for a certificate
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.