# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted June 2 , 2021 *

Decided June 3, 2021

Before

DAVID F. HAMILTON , Circuit Judge

MICHAEL B. BRENNAN , Circuit Judge

THOMAS L. KIRSCH II , Circuit Judge

No. 20-2984

ANTHONY JACKSON , Petitioner -Appellant ,

v

.

CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY , Respondent

- Appellee

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division

.

No. 18 C 5864

Charles P. Kocoras , Judge

.

O R D E R
Anthony Jackson has been confined in Cook County J ail since 2015, when he was convicted of first

- degree murder. Jackson was granted a retrial , and he asked to be released on bail —as he had been before his first trial

— but t he state trial court declined his request

. After t hat decision was upheld on appeal, Ja ckson petitioned the federal

* We have agreed to decide this case without oral argument because the briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not significantly aid the court . F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 34(a)(2) (C). NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 20-2984 Page 2

district court for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 , asserting that the denial of bail was arbitrary. The district court denied that petition . Over a year later, Jackson submitted a series of motions that the court construed a s a motion for reconsideration and denied. Jackson filed a notice of appeal from the order denying reconsideration . But before we may consider his appeal, he must receive a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)

. Jackson has not made a substantial showing that his constitutional rights have been violated, and so we decline to issue one and dismiss th is appeal for want of jurisdiction.

In 2013, J ackson was captured on a surveillance video , beating and stomping a

ma n to death on a Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) elevated platform

. He turned himself in and was charged with first

- degree murder . 720 ILCS 5/9- 1( a )(1), (2) . T he state trial court set his bail at $500,000 and , according to the state’s attorneys, he was released upon posting just a fraction of that amount. During his release, he appeared for his court hearings and trial.

Two years later , Jackson was tried by a jury and convicted of first

- degree murder

. Soon after the trial court terminated his bail , Jackson moved for a new trial based on counsel’s ineffective ness in failing to preview the damaging video . The court granted Jackson’s motion but refused to set bail pending retrial . “ I saw the video and I read the record of his trial,” the judge explained, “ and the evidence is still substantial against him. ”

Jackson soon became involved in a tangle of appellate litigation that held up his retrial. First, the trial court disqualified hi s chosen counsel, his brother , from further representing him during retrial proceedings —a decision later overturned by the Appellate Court of Illinois

. Meanwhile , Jackson , proceeding pro se, filed an emergency challenge in the appellate court to the denial of bail. Th e appell ate court upheld the denial, as did the Supreme Court of Illinois

.
In 2018, Jackson petition ed for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 based on a claim of arbitrary denial of bail . T he district court denied the petition , concluding that the denial of bail was supported by evidence in the trial record that Jackson was a danger to the community

. Jackson did not appeal that ruling.

A few d ays before Jackson’s re trial date in March 2020, amid the outbreak of the COVID -19 pandemic, the court suspended all jury trials. He has not yet been retried.No. 20-2984 Page 3

Jackson then three times

— in March and May 2020— asked the district court to
overturn its denial of his § 2241 petition . He insisted that he was not a flight risk, that the state court procedurally erred when it denied h im bail, and that he would likely contract COVID -19 in jail . The district court , constru ing Jackson’s filings as a motion to reconsider , denied the request . The court explained that the state court’s decision to deny bail , even were it erroneous as a matter of state law, was rationally supported by the trial evidence demonstrating that Jackson was dangerous. And the conditions of Jackson’s confinement, the court added , did not relate to th e bail determination

. On appeal, Jackson focus es on the denial of his § 2241 petition. He argues that
t he district court afforded too much weight to the violent nature of his charg e , ignored evidence that he did not flee before his first trial , and neglected to analyze the state court’s p rocedural errors

. With regard to the denial for reconsideration, Jackson asserts only that the district court did not thoroughly explain its rationale

.
Jackson has not, however, requested a certificate of appealability. One is required for appellate review because the district court’s orders are “final order [s] in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A); see Sanchez

- Rengifo v. Caraway , 798 F.3d 532, 535 (7th Cir. 2015) ( recognizing certificate required to review denial of habeas petition ) ; West v. Schneiter , 485 F.3d 393, 394 (7th Cir. 2007) ( recognizing certificate required to review denial of motion to reconsider)

. T he district court did not consider whether to issue a certificate, † and so w e treat Jackson’s notice of appeal as a request for one

. See Sanchez

- Rengifo , 798 F.3d at 535; West , 485 F.3d at 394. A court may grant a certificate of appealability if the applicant makes a substantial showing that a constitutional right ha s been violated

— that is, “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that)” the district court should have resolved the matter differently

. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 483–84 (2000); see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Sanchez

- Rengifo , 798 F.3d at 536.

† The district court did not consider whether to issue a certificate because it believed, based on Walker v. O’Brien , that one was unnecessary to appeal from the denial of a § 2241 petition. 216 F.3d 626, 638 (7th Cir. 2000). But Walker concerns only federa l prisoners and inmates who are detained by the state executive branch or subject to § 2253(c)(1)(B). Its holding does not apply to those detained through “process issued by a State court.” Evans v. Cir. Ct. of Cook Cnty. , 569 F.3d 665, 666–67 (7th Cir. 2009) (quotation omitted)

.No. 20-2984 Page 4

Moreover, we would have jurisdiction over only the order denying Jackson’s motion for reconsideratio n. Jackson did not timely appeal the denial of his § 2241 petition , and finality is not tolled because he did not move for reconsideration within 28 days of the judgment

. See F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv), (vi); Shields v. Ill. Dep’t of Corr. , 746 F.3d 782, 799 (7th Cir. 2014). We therefore limit our review to whether a certificate of appealability is warranted for that post

- judgment order.

It is beyond debate that Jackson failed to make a substantial showing that the district court violated a constitutional right. He was unable to show that “extraordinary circumstances” —which “rarely occur” in habeas cases— existed to justif y reopening the judgment

. Gonzalez v. Crosby , 545 U.S. 524, 535 (2005). He argued , for instance, that he was not a flight risk , but th is argument did not sway th e district court when it denied his petition and , thus, did not warrant reconsideration

. He also challenge d state procedural rulings, but errors of state law are not a basis upon which federal cou rts may grant habeas relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (c)(3) ; Estelle v. McGuire , 502 U.S. 62, 67–68 (1991). A s for his argument about the risk s from COVID -19 that he fears he faces at the jail , it is beyond debate that the mere existence of the pandemic

— without reference to any underlying health conditions that made him susceptible to the virus

— did not require the court to reopen the case. See United States v. Joiner , 988 F.3d 993, 996 (7th Cir. 2021) ( explaining in the context of 18 U.S.C. § 3582 that general societal concerns about COVID -19 d id not justify compassionate release ).

We have considered Jackson’s remaining arguments, and none merits discussion.

We decline to issue a certificate of appealability and therefore DISMISS the appeal for want of jurisdiction.