Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_16-cv-00137/USCOURTS-ared-5_16-cv-00137-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

IN THE UNITES STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

PINE BLUFF DIVISION

KENDALL C. NICHOLSON PETITIONER

v. CASE NO. 5:16-cv-00137-SWW-JTK

WENDY KELLEY, Director

Arkansas Department of Correction, and

GAYLON LAY, Warden, Cummins Unit RESPONDENTS

ORDER

The Court has received proposed findings and recommendations from United States

Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney. After careful review of the findings and

recommendations and the timely objections thereto, as well as a de novo review of the

record, the Court concludes that the findings and recommendations should be, and are

hereby, approved and adopted as this Court’s findings in all respects in their entirety. 

Accordingly, the Court dismisses this habeas corpus action with prejudice. The Court will

enter judgment accordingly. 

Because petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.1

1 A certificate of appealability certifies that the applicant has made a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right, that is, a showing that the issues are debatable among reasonable jurists, a

court could resolve the issues differently, or the issues deserve further proceedings. See, e.g., Carson v.

Director of the Iowa Dept. of Correctional Services, 150 F.3d 973, 975 (8th Cir. 1998). With respect to

claims that are procedurally barred, the Eighth Circuit has summarized the factors to consider when

determining whether a certificate of appealability should issue when a habeas claim is denied on

procedural grounds: “(1) if the claim is clearly procedurally defaulted, the certificate should not be issued;

(2) even if the procedural default is not clear, if there is no merit to the substantive constitutional claims,

Case 5:16-cv-00137-SWW Document 17 Filed 09/29/16 Page 1 of 2
SO ORDERED this 29th day of September, 2016.

/s/Susan Webber Wright

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

the certificate should not be issued; but, (3) if the procedural default is not clear and the substantive

constitutional claims are debatable among jurists of reason, the certificate should be granted.” Khaimov v.

Crist, 297 F.3d 783, 786 (8th Cir. 2002) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000)).

Case 5:16-cv-00137-SWW Document 17 Filed 09/29/16 Page 2 of 2