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 Jail 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 the state trial court declined 

his request. After that decision was upheld on appeal, Jackson 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. FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 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 as 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 this appeal for want of 

jurisdiction.

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

man 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). The 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 ineffectiveness 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 his 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. The appellate court upheld the

denial, as did the Supreme Court of Illinois. 

In 2018, Jackson petitioned for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 based on a claim of 

arbitrary denial of bail. The 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 days before Jackson’s retrial 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 him bail, and that he would likely 

contract COVID-19 in jail. The district court, construing 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 the bail determination. 

On appeal, Jackson focuses on the denial of his § 2241 petition. He argues that 

the district court afforded too much weight to the violent nature of his charge, ignored 

evidence that he did not flee before his first trial, and neglected to analyze the state 

court’s procedural 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). The district court did not consider whether to 

issue a certificate,† and so we 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 

has 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 

federal 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 reconsideration. 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 FED. R. APP. 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 justify reopening the

judgment. Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 535 (2005). He argued, for instance, that he 

was not a flight risk, but this argument did not sway the district court when it denied 

his petition and, thus, did not warrant reconsideration. He also challenged state 

procedural rulings, but errors of state law are not a basis upon which federal courts 

may grant habeas relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67–68 

(1991). As for his argument about the risks 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 did 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.