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.

Crutchfield v. Rednour

United States District Court, Seventh Circuit

September 16, 2013

STEVEN M. CRUTCHFIELD, Petitioner,
v.
DAVID A. REDNOUR Respondent.

ORDER

DAVID R. HERNDON, CHIEF JUDGE:

Pending before the Court are petitioner’s motion for certificate of appealability (Doc. 28) and petitioner’s motion to request the record on appeal (Doc. 32). For the following reasons petitioner’s motions will be DENIED.

Under the 2009 Amendments to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings, the “district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” A petitioner cannot appeal a dismissal of his habeas petition unless he obtains a Certificate of Appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). A Certificate of Appealability may only be issued where the petitioner “has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Evans v. Circuit Ct. of Cook Cnty., Ill., 569 F.3d 665, 667 (7th Cir. 2009). This requirement has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean that an applicant must show that “reasonable jurists could debate whether . . . the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Mill-el v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029 (2003) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)). While a petitioner need not show that his appeal will succeed, he must show “something more than the absence of frivolity” or the existence of mere “good faith” on his part. Id. at 338 (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893, 103 S.Ct. 3383, 77 L.Ed.2d 1090 (1983)).

Here, the undersigned finds no basis for a determination that its decision to dismiss Petitioner’s claims was debatable or incorrect. Petitioner’s claims were dismissed because they were procedurally defaulted. Petitioner failed to exhaust the available state collateral process, grounds which a reasonable jurist would not find debatable.

Further, petitioner’s motion requesting the record on appeal is moot. The Court notified petitioner that it would send the record on appeal to all parties pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 3(d) (Doc. 31).

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s Certificate of Appealability in this case and DENIES as moot Petitioner’s motion to request the record on appeal. IT IS SO ORDERED.


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.