Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-1_14-cv-00176/USCOURTS-alnd-1_14-cv-00176-0/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)

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

JACQUINDALYN MESHALL CARR, )

)

Petitioner )

)

vs. ) Case No. 1:14-cv-00176-LSC-HGD

)

STATE OF ALABAMA, et al., )

)

Respondents )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On March 10, 2015, the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation was

entered and the parties were allowed therein fourteen (14) days in which to file

objections to the recommendations made by the magistrate judge. No objections to

the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation have been filed by petitioner or

respondents. 

After careful consideration of the record in this case and the magistrate judge’s

report and recommendation, the Court hereby ADOPTS the report of the magistrate

judge. The Court further ACCEPTS the recommendations of the magistrate judge

that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied. 

FILED

 2015 Mar-27 AM 09:23

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 1:14-cv-00176-LSC-HGD Document 13 Filed 03/27/15 Page 1 of 3
Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, the Court has

evaluated the claims within the petition for suitability for the issuance of a certificate

of appealability (COA). See 28 U.S.C. § 2253. 

Rule 22(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that when an

appeal is taken by a petitioner, the district judge who rendered the judgment “shall”

either issue a COA or state the reasons why such a certificate should not issue. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), a COA may issue only when the petitioner “has

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” This showing can

be established by demonstrating 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 were “adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1603-04, 146 L.Ed.2d 542

(2000) (citing Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 & n.4, 103 S.Ct. 3383, 3394-95

& n.4, 77 L.Ed.2d 1090 (1983)). For procedural rulings, a COA will issue only if

reasonable jurists could debate whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial

of a constitutional right and whether the court’s procedural ruling was correct. Id. 

The Court finds that reasonable jurists could not debate its resolution of the

claims presented in this habeas corpus petition. For the reasons stated in the

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the Court DECLINES to issue a COA

with respect to any claims. 

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:14-cv-00176-LSC-HGD Document 13 Filed 03/27/15 Page 2 of 3
A separate order in conformitywith this MemorandumOpinion will be entered

contemporaneously herewith.

Done this 27 day of March 2015.

th

 

L. Scott Coogler

United States District Judge

[160704]

Page 3 of 3

Case 1:14-cv-00176-LSC-HGD Document 13 Filed 03/27/15 Page 3 of 3