Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-2_13-cv-00514/USCOURTS-alsd-2_13-cv-00514-3/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 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

VANESSA GILL, ) 

Petitioner, )

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION 2:13-0514-KD-B

BOBBY BARRETT, et al., )

Respondents. )

ORDER

This action is before the Court on Petitioner Vanessa Gill’s “Response and Objection to 

Recommendation of the US Magistrate, in Support of Motion to Reconsider Not Granting 

Certificate of Appealability on Certain Counts” (doc. 29). Petitioner points out that the Court has 

granted a COA as to Claim One1 and moves the Court to reconsider the decision to deny a COA 

as to Claims Five and Seven,

2 which she alleges are closely related to Claim One. Petitioner 

argues that a COA should be granted as to Claims Five and Seven because they “relate to the 

Dallas County Circuit Court trial judge’s failure to order the Dallas County District Attorney to 

‘reveal the deal’” (doc. 29, p. 2). 

The habeas corpus statute states that an applicant is entitled to appeal a district court’s 

denial of a habeas corpus petition only where a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

 1 In Claim One, Petitioner asserted that her rights under the Fourteenth Amendment were 

violated by the state court’s unreasonable application of the standard for sufficient proof set forth 

in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 316, 99 S.Ct. 2782 (1979). Specifically, that the trial court 

erred by denying her motion for judgment of acquittal based on the sufficiency of the evidence. 

2 In Claim Five, Petitioner asserted that her right to due process was violated because the 

State failed to disclose the deal with the main witness against her in exchange for his testimony, 

which violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194 (1963). In Claim Seven, 

Petitioner asserted that she was denied a fair trial because the State withheld the fact that the 

same witness lied when he testified under oath that he had nor received leniency from 

prosecution in exchange for his testimony. 

Case 2:13-cv-00514-KD-B Document 30 Filed 08/15/16 Page 1 of 2
2

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). The statute explains that 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. § 2243(c)(2). “Where a district court has rejected the 

constitutional claims on the merits, the showing required to satisfy § 2253(c) is straightforward: 

The 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, 120 

S.Ct. 1595 (2000) or that “the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to 

proceed further.” Miller–El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1039 (2003) 

(internal quotations omitted). 

Upon consideration of the Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and the Report and 

Recommendation,

3 the Court finds that there are no grounds for reconsideration of the denial of a 

COA as to Claims Five and Seven. Petitioner Gill has not met her burden to demonstrate that 

reasonable jurists would find debatable the district court’s assessment of Petitioner’s Fourteenth 

Amendment Due Process claim raised in Claims 5 and 7. Petitioner has failed to make a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for 

reconsideration of the denial of a COA as to these claims is DENIED. 

DONE this 15th day of August 2016.

 s/Kristi K. DuBose

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 3

 The Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s findings that Petitioner had not demonstrated 

that the state courts’ factual findings were erroneous or that the state courts’ decisions were 

contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law or were 

based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in view of the evidence presented in the 

state-court proceedings (docs. 22, 23, Order and Judgment).

Case 2:13-cv-00514-KD-B Document 30 Filed 08/15/16 Page 2 of 2