Brooks v. Carter (INMATE 4)

M.D. Alabama

Brooks v. Carter (INMATE 4)

DecidedApril 4, 2023

Docket3:22-cv-00687

StatusUnknown

This text of Brooks v. Carter (INMATE 4) (Brooks v. Carter (INMATE 4)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brooks v. Carter (INMATE 4), (M.D. Ala. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION WALTER JAMES BROOKS, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 3:22-CV-687-WKW ) [WO] KAREN CARTER, Warden, and ) STEVEN T. MARSHALL, Attorney ) General for the State of Alabama, ) ) Respondents. )

ORDER On March 14, 2023, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation to which no timely objections have been filed. (Doc. # 14.) Upon an independent review of the record, it is ORDERED that the Recommendation is ADOPTED, that Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition is DENIED, and that this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. A certificate of appealability will not be issued. For a petitioner to obtain a certificate of appealability, he must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This showing requires 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. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). And, where a petition is denied on procedural grounds, he “must show not only that one or more

of the claims he has raised presents a substantial constitutional issue, but also that there is a substantial issue about the correctness of the procedural ground on which the petition was denied.” Gordon v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corrs., 479 F.3d 1299, 1300

(11th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). “A ‘substantial question’ about the procedural ruling means that the correctness of it under the law as it now stands is debatable among jurists of reason.” Id. Because reasonable jurists would not find the denial of Petitioner’s § 2255 petition debatable, it is ORDERED that a certificate of

appealability is DENIED. Final judgment will be entered separately. DONE this 4th day of April, 2023.

/s/ W. Keith Watkins UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION WALTER JAMES BROOKS, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 3:22-CV-687-WKW ) [WO] KAREN CARTER, Warden, and ) STEVEN T. MARSHALL, Attorney ) General for the State of Alabama, ) ) Respondents. )

ORDER On March 14, 2023, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation to which no timely objections have been filed. (Doc. # 14.) Upon an independent review of the record, it is ORDERED that the Recommendation is ADOPTED, that Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition is DENIED, and that this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. A certificate of appealability will not be issued. For a petitioner to obtain a certificate of appealability, he must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This showing requires 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. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). And, where a petition is denied on procedural grounds, he “must show not only that one or more

of the claims he has raised presents a substantial constitutional issue, but also that there is a substantial issue about the correctness of the procedural ground on which the petition was denied.” Gordon v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corrs., 479 F.3d 1299, 1300

(11th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). “A ‘substantial question’ about the procedural ruling means that the correctness of it under the law as it now stands is debatable among jurists of reason.” Id. Because reasonable jurists would not find the denial of Petitioner’s § 2255 petition debatable, it is ORDERED that a certificate of

appealability is DENIED. Final judgment will be entered separately. DONE this 4th day of April, 2023.

/s/ W. Keith Watkins UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Brooks v. Carter (INMATE 4), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brooks-v-carter-inmate-4-almd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack