Robinson v. Trierweiler

• Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
• Decided: March 25, 2025
• Docket: 2:19-cv-11420
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOMAR DAVELL ROBINSON,

Petitioner, Case Number 19-11420 Honorable David M. Lawson v.

TONY TRIERWEILER,

Respondent. ________________________________________/

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY Petitioner Jomar Robinson filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on May 14, 2019. On March 31, 2025, the Court issued an opinion and order denying the petition after concluding that all of the claims were without merit. Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts: The district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant. . . . If the court issues a certificate, the court must state the specific issue or issues that satisfy the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). If the court denies a certificate, a party may not appeal the denial but may seek a certificate from the court of appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22.

Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. A certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Courts must either issue a certificate of appealability indicating which issues satisfy the required showing or provide reasons why such a certificate should not issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); In re Certificates of Appealability, 106 F.3d 1306, 1307 (6th Cir. 1997). To receive a certificate of appealability, “a petitioner must show 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.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (internal quotes and citations omitted).

The Court finds that reasonable jurists could not debate the conclusion that all of the petitioner’s claims are without merit. Therefore, the Court will deny a certificate of appealability. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. s/David M. Lawson DAVID M. LAWSON United States District Judge

Dated: March 25, 2025

- 2 -