Crangle v. Government of West Virginia

582 F. App'x 148
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedAugust 1, 2014
DocketNo. 14-6454
StatusPublished

This text of 582 F. App'x 148 (Crangle v. Government of West Virginia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Crangle v. Government of West Virginia, 582 F. App'x 148 (4th Cir. 2014).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

J.K. Crangle, who at all times relevant to the underlying proceedings was a pretrial detainee at the Eastern Regional Jail in West Virginia, seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to construe Crangle’s federal habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) and to dismiss it for failure to exhaust his state court remedies. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Crangle has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Crangle’s request for the appointment of counsel, 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.

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

Related

Slack v. McDaniel
529 U.S. 473 (Supreme Court, 2000)
Miller-El v. Cockrell
537 U.S. 322 (Supreme Court, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
582 F. App'x 148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crangle-v-government-of-west-virginia-ca4-2014.