JOHNSON v. ADAMS

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MICHAEL ROLAND JOHNSON, ) ) Petitioner ) Case No. 1:22-cv-291 ) V. ) ) RICHARD A. LANZILLO MELINDA ADAMS, JOSHUA ) Chief United States Magistrate Judge SHAPIRO, Attorney General of the ) State of Pennsylvania, DISTRICT ) ATTORNEY OF ERIE COUNTY, ) MEMORANDUM OPINION ) ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF Respondents ) HABEAS CORPUS (ECF No. 1) )

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before the Court is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Petitioner Michael Rolan Johnson.' It appearing that Petitioner’s claims were subject to dismissal as untimely pursuant to □□ limitations period set forth in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (*“AEDPA”), 2 U.S.C. § 2244(d), the Court issued a Memorandum and Show Cause Order on January 7, 2025, settin forth the relevant timeliness analysis and allowing Petitioner an opportunity to respond on or befot February 18, 2025. ECF No. 14. Petitioner has not responded. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in its previous Memorandum, this Court will dismiss th habeas claims as untimely. No certificate of appealability will issue in this case. AEDPA codified standards governing th issuance of a certificate of appealability for appellate review of a district court’s disposition of a □□□□ petition. It provides that “[a] certificate of appealability may issue...only if the applicant has made

' The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge as authorized b 28 U.S.C. § 636.

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “When the distri court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner’s underlyit constitutional claim, a [certificate of appealability] should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, th jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was corre in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Because jurists of reason wou not find it debatable whether Petitioner’s claims should be denied as untimely, a certificate of appealabili will be denied with respect to each claim. An appropriate Order follows. = Fed Dated: March 11, 2025 Chief United States Magistrate Judge