Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07011/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07011-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Harold Clarke
Appellee
Jonathan Griffin
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7011

JONATHAN GRIFFIN,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

HAROLD CLARKE, V.D.O.C. DIRECTOR,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, 

District Judge. (1:15-cv-00658-LMB-TCB)

Submitted: October 29, 2015 Decided: November 20, 2015

Before KING, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jonathan Griffin, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7011 Doc: 11 Filed: 11/20/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Jonathan Griffin seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is 

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Griffin has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

Appeal: 15-7011 Doc: 11 Filed: 11/20/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7011 Doc: 11 Filed: 11/20/2015 Pg: 3 of 3