Williams v. Washington

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

THELMA WILLIAMS PETITIONER

v. NO. 4:22-cv-00327 JM

CLASSIFICATION OFFICER WASHINGTON, RESPONDENTS WARDEN TODD BELL, WARDEN JAMES GIBSON, WARDEN BRANDON CARROLL, RECORDS OFFICER STRAUGHN, INMATE SHINEFLEW, LAW LIBRARY OFFICER EVANS, LAW LIBRARY OFFICER RANDELL, LAW LIBRARY OFFICER GORDON, LAW LIBRARY OFFICER KENNEDY, PINE BLUFF POLICE OFFICERS DOE, VARNER SUPERMAX SERGEANT WALLACE, VARNER SUPERMAX OFFICER HARTER, and VARNER SUPERMAX LIEUTENANT JOHNSON VARNER SUPERMAX CAPTAIN BIDENS, PINE BLUFF POLICE INVESTIGATOR CLARK, PINE BLUFF POLICE INVESTIGATOR KING, PINE BLUFF POLICE INVESTIGATOR HAMPTON

ORDER In order for this Court to grant a certificate of appealability, the petitioner must make a Asubstantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.@ 28 U.S.C. ' 2253(c)(2); Tiedeman v. Benson, 122 F.3d 518 (8th Cir. 1997). To make such a showing, “[t]he petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). In this case, Petitioner has failed to make such a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, for the reasons previously stated in the order denying the petition, docket #53 and 44, the motion for certificate of appealability is denied. (Docket # 66). Petitioner’s motions for reconsideration, docket #’s 63, 64 and 65 are DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 14" day of July, 2022.

James + Moody | United States District Judge