Hall v. Valenza (INMATE 3)

M.D. Alabama

Hall v. Valenza (INMATE 3)

DecidedJanuary 31, 2023

Docket1:21-cv-00398

StatusUnknown

This text of Hall v. Valenza (INMATE 3) (Hall v. Valenza (INMATE 3)) 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

Hall v. Valenza (INMATE 3), (M.D. Ala. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION JONATHAN HALL, # 152747, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 1:21-CV-398-WKW ) [WO] DONALD VALENZA, Sheriff, ) STEVEN T. MARSHALL, Attorney ) General for the State of Alabama, ) STATE OF ALABAMA, and ) HOUSTON COUNTY CCO ) PROGRAM, ) ) Respondents. )

ORDER On December 19, 2022, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation to which no timely objections have been filed. (Doc. # 12.) Upon an independent review of the record, it is ORDERED that the Recommendation is ADOPTED, that Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 motion is DENIED, and that this action 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, the petitioner “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). “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 §

2254 petition debatable, it is ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. Final judgment will be entered separately.

DONE this 31st day of January, 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 SOUTHERN DIVISION JONATHAN HALL, # 152747, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 1:21-CV-398-WKW ) [WO] DONALD VALENZA, Sheriff, ) STEVEN T. MARSHALL, Attorney ) General for the State of Alabama, ) STATE OF ALABAMA, and ) HOUSTON COUNTY CCO ) PROGRAM, ) ) Respondents. )

ORDER On December 19, 2022, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation to which no timely objections have been filed. (Doc. # 12.) Upon an independent review of the record, it is ORDERED that the Recommendation is ADOPTED, that Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 motion is DENIED, and that this action 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, the petitioner “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). “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 §

2254 petition debatable, it is ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. Final judgment will be entered separately.

DONE this 31st day of January, 2023. /s/ W. Keith Watkins UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hall v. Valenza (INMATE 3), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-valenza-inmate-3-almd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack