Opinion ID: 730980
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Bailey Case

Text: 2 Henry C. Bailey is an Alabama inmate who is serving a life sentence imposed in 1991 under Alabama's Habitual Felony Offender Act, see Ala.Code § 13A-5-9 (1975), as a result of his conviction for distribution of a controlled substance in violation of Ala.Code § 13A-12-211 (1975). After exhausting his state court remedies, Bailey filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application for relief in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama on February 24, 1995. Adopting a magistrate judge's report and recommendation that relief be denied, the district court dismissed Bailey's application on July 11, 1996. 3 Thereafter, Bailey filed a notice of appeal, a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, and a motion for a certificate of probable cause to appeal. In an August 21, 1996 order, the district court granted Bailey's in forma pauperis motion. By separate order that same date, the district court treated Bailey's motion for a certificate of probable cause as a motion for a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) and Rule 22(b), as amended. Even though the court granted Bailey a certificate of appealability, it acknowledged that there was an unsettled question of law about whether a district judge is authorized to do so. More specifically, the court noted that § 2253(c)(1), as amended, provides that a circuit justice or judge may issue a certificate of appealability, while the amended Rule 22(b) provides that a district or a circuit judge may do so. The court warned Bailey that he might be required to request a certificate of appealability from this Court. He has not done so. 4 In granting Bailey a certificate of appealability, the district court applied the substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right standard set out in § 2253(c)(2). However, the court did not specify, as required by § 2253(c)(3), which of the multitude of issues Bailey had raised met that standard.