Pitts v. Warden
This text of Pitts v. Warden (Pitts v. Warden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Pitts v. Warden CV-95-2 94-SD 02/04/97
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Shayne Pitts
v. Civil No. 95-294-SD
Michael Cunningham, Warden, New Hampshire State Prison
O R D E R
In its order of December 18, 1996, the court considered the
habeas corpus petition then before it, filed by a state prisoner,
in light of the rules in existence prior to the effective date of
the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
(AEDPA). Accordingly, the court followed the provisions of 28
U.S.C. § 2253 that reguired it to issue a certificate of probable
cause if further appeal was to be had. The court denied the
issuance of such a certificate.
Petitioner has now moved the court of appeals for a
certificate of probable cause, and the court of appeals has
construed the motion as a Notice of Appeal and Reguest for a
Certificate of Probable Cause/Certificate of Appealability to
this court. That court has accordingly closed the appeal and
transmitted the motion to this court, with directions to use the
docketing date of January 17, 1997. On such remand, I am apparently required to issue a
certificate of appealability or state the reasons why such
certificate should not issue. Rule 22(b), Fed. R. Ap p . P.*
Accordingly, I deny the issuance of a certificate of
appealability because, on due consideration of petitioner's
arguments, I have concluded that he has made no substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right; that is, no
demonstration that the issues presented are debatable among
jurists of reason. Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 & n.4
(1983) .
SO ORDERED.
Shane Devine, Senior Judge United States District Court
February 4, 1997
cc: Shayne Pitts, pro se Cynthia L. White, Esq.
*Rule 22(b), Fed. R. App. P., is in apparent conflict with 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) as amended by AEDPA, which requires that certificates of appealability be issued by either a circuit justice or judge.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Pitts v. Warden, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pitts-v-warden-nhd-1997.