Talley v. Toney (INMATE 3)

M.D. Alabama

Talley v. Toney (INMATE 3)

DecidedDecember 12, 2023

Docket2:21-cv-00452

StatusUnknown

This text of Talley v. Toney (INMATE 3) (Talley v. Toney (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

Talley v. Toney (INMATE 3), (M.D. Ala. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION

ADRIAN FITZGERALD TALLEY, JR., ) # 271564, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 2:21-cv-452-RAH-SMD ) (WO) DEBORAH TONEY, et al., ) ) Respondents. )

ORDER On October 24, 2023, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation to dismiss the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 with prejudice. (Doc. 14.) No objections to the Recommendation have been filed. After an independent review of the record and upon consideration of the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation, it is ORDERED as follows: (1) The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 14) is ADOPTED; (2) The Petition is DENIED without an evidentiary hearing; and (3) This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Furthermore, 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, he “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) (citations omitted). “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.” Jd. Because reasonable jurists would not find the denial of Petitioner’s § 2254 petition debatable, a certificate of appealability is DENIED. DONE, on this the 12th day of December 2023. Cbd.

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 NORTHERN DIVISION

ADRIAN FITZGERALD TALLEY, JR., ) # 271564, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 2:21-cv-452-RAH-SMD ) (WO) DEBORAH TONEY, et al., ) ) Respondents. )

ORDER On October 24, 2023, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation to dismiss the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 with prejudice. (Doc. 14.) No objections to the Recommendation have been filed. After an independent review of the record and upon consideration of the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation, it is ORDERED as follows: (1) The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 14) is ADOPTED; (2) The Petition is DENIED without an evidentiary hearing; and (3) This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Furthermore, 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, he “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) (citations omitted). “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.” Jd. Because reasonable jurists would not find the denial of Petitioner’s § 2254 petition debatable, a certificate of appealability is DENIED. DONE, on this the 12th day of December 2023. Cbd.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Talley v. Toney (INMATE 3), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/talley-v-toney-inmate-3-almd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack