Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07692/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07692-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Keith Davis
Appellee
Eleazar D. Totten
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7692

ELEAZAR D. TOTTEN,

 Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

KEITH DAVIS, Warden,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior

District Judge. (1:14-cv-01358-CMH-IDD)

Submitted: March 20, 2015 Decided: April 2, 2015

Before GREGORY and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eleazar D. Totten, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7692 Doc: 9 Filed: 04/02/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Eleazar D. Totten seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition without 

prejudice. 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 

Totten 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: 14-7692 Doc: 9 Filed: 04/02/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 14-7692 Doc: 9 Filed: 04/02/2015 Pg: 3 of 3