Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

U.S. EX REL EDWARDS v. BRILEY

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division


January 10, 2005.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex. rel. JAMES LEO EDWARDS Petitioner,
v.
KENNETH R. BRILEY, Respondent.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: SAMUEL DER-YEGHIAYAN, District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the court on Petitioner James Edwards' ("Edwards") request for a certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). For the reasons stated below, Edwards' request for a certificate of appealability is denied.

BACKGROUND

  Edwards initially filed two separate petitions for writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. U.S. ex. rel. Edwards v. Briley, (N.D. Ill. 2002) (No. 02 C 1659); U.S. ex rel. Edwards v. Briley, (N.D. Ill. 2002) (No. 02 C 1660). On March 30, 2004, in a memorandum opinion, we denied Edwards' petitions for writ of habeas corpus. U.S. ex rel. Edwards v. Briley, 2004 WL 723837 (N.D. Ill. 2004). On November 3, 2004, in a memorandum opinion, we denied Edwards' motion for reconsideration of our March 30, 2004 memorandum opinion. U.S. ex rel. Edwards v. Briley, 2004 WL 2496225 (N.D. Ill. 2004). Edwards now seeks a certificate of appealability.

  LEGAL STANDARD

  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)). DISCUSSION

  In Edwards' request for a certificate of appealability, Edwards argues that he is entitled to a certificate of appealability for "constitutional claims", but has failed to identify or argue any specific claim or issue previously raised in his petitions for writ of habeas corpus. (Request p. 1). On March 30, 2004, in a memorandum opinion, we denied Edwards' petitions for writ of habeas corpus and extensively addressed all of his claims. Edwards, in his request for a certificate of appealability, has failed to make a substantial showing that he has been denied a constitutional right and has also failed to show that reasonable jurists could agree or debate that any of the claims contained in his petitions for writ of habeas corpus should be granted. Edwards has also failed to present any meritorious arguments that would indicate that any of the issues presented in his petitions for writ of habeas corpus deserve "encouragement to proceed further." Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. Therefore, we deny Edwards' request for a certificate of appealability.

  CONCLUSION

  Based on the foregoing analysis, we deny Edwards' request for a certificate of appealability.

20050110

© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.