Merilien v. McFarlane

• Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia
• Decided: June 6, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00041
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA DUBLIN DIVISION JEAN JOCELYN MERILIEN, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) V. ) CV 325-041 ) WARDEN ANDREW MCFARLANE; ) CRYSTAL L. MOON, Field Director ) Clemency Board/Division; and GEORGIA ) BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES ) and ITS 6 MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, ) ) Respondents. )

ORDER

After a careful, de novo review of the file, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, to which no objections have been filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as its opinion, DENIES AS MOOT the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, (doc. no. 2), and DISMISSES this petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice.! Further, a state prisoner seeking relief under § 2241 must obtain a certificate of appealability (“COA”) before appealing the denial of his application for a writ of habeas

'The Court recognizes the case filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 cited as pending at the time of entry of the Report and Recommendation has now been dismissed. (See doc. no. 4, p. 2 (citing Merilien v. Moon, CV 324-087 (S.D. Ga. Dec. 12, 2024), dismissed May 12, 2025).) That dismissal does not change the analysis the instant case is due to be dismissed for the reasons explained by the Magistrate Judge.

corpus. See Sawyer v. Holder, 326 F.3d 1363, 1364 n.3 (11th Cir. 2003) (“[S]tate prisoners proceeding under § 2241 must obtain a COA to appeal.”) This Court should grant a COA only if the prisoner makes a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). For the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation, and in consideration of the standards enunciated in Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 482-84 (2000), Petitioner has failed to make the requisite showing. Accordingly, the Court DENIES a COA in this case. Moreover, because there are no non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal, an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and Petitioner is not entitled to appeal in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Upon the foregoing, the Court CLOSES this civil action. SO ORDERED this E& dy of June, 2025, at Augusta, Georgia.