Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Thomas Mitchell, Jr. v. Harold Clarke, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    11 views3 pages
    1) Thomas F. Mitchell, Jr., a state prisoner, appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, which the court also construed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, and the denial of his postjudgment motion. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and determined that Mitchell did not make the requisite showing to merit the issuance of a certificate of appealability. 3) As such, the Fourth Circuit denied Mitchell's request for a certificate of appealability, denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-12-02 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-6843

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Thomas F. Mitchell, Jr., a state prisoner, appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, which the court also construed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, and the denial of his postjudgment motion. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and determined that Mitchell did not make the requisite showing to merit the issuance of a certificate of appealability. 3) As such, the Fourth Circuit denied Mitchell's request for a certificate of appealability, denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    11 views3 pages

    Thomas Mitchell, Jr. v. Harold Clarke, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Thomas F. Mitchell, Jr., a state prisoner, appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, which the court also construed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, and the denial of his postjudgment motion. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and determined that Mitchell did not make the requisite showing to merit the issuance of a certificate of appealability. 3) As such, the Fourth Circuit denied Mitchell's request for a certificate of appealability, denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 15-6843

    THOMAS F. MITCHELL, JR.,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    HAROLD W. CLARKE, VDOC Director,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
    Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
    District Judge. (7:14-cv-00086-JLK-RSB)

    Submitted:

    November 30, 2015

    Decided:

    December 2, 2015

    Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Thomas F. Mitchell, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.


    James Milburn
    Isaacs, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA,
    Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Thomas F. Mitchell, Jr., a state prisoner, seeks to appeal
    the

    district

    courts

    order

    denying

    relief

    on

    his

    28

    U.S.C.

    2241 (2012) petition, which the court also construed as a 28


    U.S.C. 2254 (2012) petition.

    Mitchell also seeks to appeal

    the district courts order denying his postjudgment motion.


    orders

    are

    issues

    not

    appealable

    certificate

    2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
    issue

    absent

    unless
    of

    circuit

    justice

    appealability.

    or

    28

    judge
    U.S.C.

    A certificate of appealability will not

    substantial

    constitutional right.

    The

    showing

    of

    the

    denial

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2012).

    of

    When the

    district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies


    this

    standard

    by

    demonstrating

    that

    reasonable

    jurists

    would

    find that the district courts assessment of the constitutional


    claims is debatable or wrong.

    Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

    484

    Cockrell,

    (2000);

    (2003).

    see

    Miller-El

    v.

    537

    U.S.

    322,

    336-38

    When the district court denies relief on procedural

    grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive


    procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a
    debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

    Slack,

    529 U.S. at 484-85.


    We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
    Mitchell has not made the requisite showing.

    Accordingly, we

    deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in


    2

    forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.

    We dispense with oral

    argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately


    presented in the materials before this court and argument would
    not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED

    You might also like