Page 1 of 3

Case No. 4:11cv327-RH/CAS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

WILLIE JAMES BOONE,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 4:11cv327-RH/CAS

MICHAEL D. CREWS,

Respondent.

_________________________________/

ORDER DENYING THE PETITION AND

DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

This petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is before 

the court on the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, ECF No. 33, and 

the objections, ECF No. 34. I have reviewed de novo the issues raised by the 

objections. The report and recommendation is correct and is adopted as the court’s 

opinion.

Rule 11 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires a district court to 

“issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to 

the applicant.” Under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), a certificate of appealability may 

issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 

Case 4:11-cv-00327-RH-CAS Document 35 Filed 07/08/14 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

Case No. 4:11cv327-RH/CAS

constitutional right.” See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-38 (2003); 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000); Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 

893 n.4 (1983); see also Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 402-13 (2000) (setting 

out the standards applicable to a § 2254 petition on the merits). As the Court said 

in Slack:

 To obtain a COA under § 2253(c), a habeas prisoner must make a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a 

demonstration that, under Barefoot, includes showing 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, 529 U.S. at 483-84 (quoting Barefoot, 463 U.S. at 893 n.4). Further, in 

order to obtain a certificate of appealability when dismissal is based on procedural 

grounds, a petitioner must show, “at least, that jurists of reason would find it 

debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional 

right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court 

was correct in its procedural ruling.” Id. at 484. 

The petitioner has not made the required showing. This order thus denies a 

certificate of appealability. Because the petitioner has not obtained—and is not 

entitled to—a certificate of appealability, any appeal will not be taken in good 

faith. I certify under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a) that an appeal will 

not be taken in good faith and that the petitioner is not otherwise entitled to 

Case 4:11-cv-00327-RH-CAS Document 35 Filed 07/08/14 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

Case No. 4:11cv327-RH/CAS

proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. But for the requirement to obtain a 

certificate of appealability, leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis would be 

granted. 

For these reasons,

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. The report and recommendation is ACCEPTED.

2. The clerk must enter judgment stating, “The petition is DENIED with 

prejudice.” 

3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

4. A motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED.

5. The clerk must close the file.

SO ORDERED on July 8, 2014.

s/Robert L. Hinkle

United States District Judge

Case 4:11-cv-00327-RH-CAS Document 35 Filed 07/08/14 Page 3 of 3