Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_08-cv-00033/USCOURTS-ared-5_08-cv-00033-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Danny Lee Hooper
Plaintiff
Larry Norris
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

PINE BLUFF DIVISION

DANNY LEE HOOPER PETITIONER

vs. Civil Case No. 5:08CV00033 HLJ

LARRY NORRIS, Director, 

Arkansas Department of Correction RESPONDENT

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

INSTRUCTIONS

The following recommended disposition has been sent to United

States District Court Judge Brian S. Miller. Any party may serve

and file written objections to this recommendation. Objections

should be specific and should include the factual or legal basis for

the objection. If the objection is to a factual finding,

specifically identify that finding and the evidence that supports

your objection. An original and one copy of your objections must

be received in the office of the United States District Court Clerk

no later than eleven (11) days from the date of the findings and

recommendations. The copy will be furnished to the opposing party.

Failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of the right

to appeal questions of fact.

If you are objecting to the recommendation and also desire to

submit new, different, or additional evidence, and to have a hearing

for this purpose before the District Judge, you must, at the same

time that you file your written objections, include the following:

Case 5:08-cv-00033-BSM Document 50 Filed 01/06/10 Page 1 of 5
2

1. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is

inadequate.

2. Why the evidence proffered at the hearing before the

District Judge (if such a hearing is granted) was

not offered at the hearing before the Magistrate

Judge. 

3. The detail of any testimony desired to be introduced

at the hearing before the District Judge in the form

of an offer of proof, and a copy, or the original,

of any documentary or other non-testimonial evidence

desired to be introduced at the hearing before the

District Judge.

From this submission, the District Judge will determine the

necessity for an additional evidentiary hearing, either before the

Magistrate Judge or before the District Judge.

Mail your objections and “Statement of Necessity” to:

Clerk, United States District Court

Eastern District of Arkansas

600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149

Little Rock, AR 72201-3325

DISPOSITION

The District Court has referred Petitioner’s Motion for

Certificate of Appealability (COA) (DE #48) to this court for

recommended disposition. Judgment was entered in this habeas corpus

case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on June 25, 2009, dismissing the

petition with prejudice. In order to appeal the denial of a § 2254

petition, the petitioner must first obtain a certificate of

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(C)(1). Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 482 (2000). A motion for a certificate of appealability that

is filed within the time limitations of Fed.R.App.P.4 is the

Case 5:08-cv-00033-BSM Document 50 Filed 01/06/10 Page 2 of 5
3

“functional equivalent of a notice of appeal....” Carson v.

Director of Iowa Dept. Of Correctional Services, 150 F.3d 973, 975

(8th Cir. 1998).

Rule 4(a)(6) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure

provides in relevant part as follows:

(6) Reopening the Time to File an Appeal. The district

court may reopen the time to file an appeal for a period

of 14 days after the date when its order to reopen is

entered, but only if all the following conditions are

satisfied: 

(A) the court finds that the moving party did

not receive notice under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 77(d) of the entry of the judgment or

order sought to be appealed within 21 days

after entry; 

(B) the motion is filed within 180 days after

the judgment or order is entered or within 14

days after the moving party receives notice

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 77(d) of

the entry, whichever is earlier; and

(C) the court finds that no party would be

prejudiced. 

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6). Time limits for filing

a notice of appeal are jurisdictional in nature. Bowles v. Russell,

551 U.S. 205, 209-10 (2007). 

In the present case, the District Court entered judgment on

June 25, 2009, and petitioner filed his motion for a certificate of

appealability on December 2, 2009. Petitioner states he was not

notified of the entry of judgment until November 23, 2009, after he

had inquired as to the status of his case. Respondent has not

responded to the motion. 

Case 5:08-cv-00033-BSM Document 50 Filed 01/06/10 Page 3 of 5
4

The court has examined the record in the case and finds there

is no “Certificate of Mailing” entered by the Clerk after Judgment

was entered, and I find this is sufficient basis to infer Petitioner

did not receive notice of the Judgment until November 23, 2009. The

filing date of the motion, December 2, 2009, is within the 180 days

of the date the Judgment was filed, and it is within the 14 days of

the date Petitioner received notice of the filing of the Judgment.

Respondent has not opposed the motion on the ground that he would

be prejudiced by the reopening of the time for filing an appeal.

Thus, I find the time for filing an appeal should be reopened and

that Petitioner’s motion should be found to be timely.

As for the merits of the motion, a “COA should issue if the

applicant has ‘made a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right,’ 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), which we have

interpreted to require that the ‘petitioner must demonstrate that

reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the

constitutional claims debatable or wrong.’” Tennard v. Dretke, 542

U.S. 274, 282 (2004), quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. at 483-

484. To satisfy this standard, a petitioner must show 

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

presented were " 'adequate to deserve encouragement to

proceed further.' 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. at 484. This determination “requires

an overview of the claims ... and a general assessment of their

Case 5:08-cv-00033-BSM Document 50 Filed 01/06/10 Page 4 of 5
5

merits,” but the statute prohibits full consideration of the factual

or legal bases supporting the claims. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537

U.S. 322, 336 (2003). The Eighth Circuit has articulated three

rules from Slack for considering a petition for a certificate of

appealability:

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, 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.

Langley v. Norris, 465 F.3d 861, 863 (8th Cir. 2006), quoting Khaimov

v. Crist, 397 F.3d 783, 786 (8th Cir. 2002).

Petitioner has not carried his burden. This court simply does

not find the issues raised by Petitioner are issues debatable among

jurists of reason, that they are issues another court could resolve

differently, or that they are issues deserving further proceedings.

Accordingly, the court concludes Petitioner's motion for a

certificate of appealability should be and hereby is denied. 

SO ORDERED this 6th day of January, 2010.

 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:08-cv-00033-BSM Document 50 Filed 01/06/10 Page 5 of 5