The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DAX STRATTMAN CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 19-8677
ROBERT TANNER, WARDEN, et al. SECTION: G
ORDER
“A COA [Certificate of Appealability] will issue only if the requirements of [28 U.S.C.]
§ 2253 have been satisfied.”1 Section 2253(c) permits issuance of a COA when “a petitioner has made
a ‘substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.’”2 “Under this standard, when a district
court denies habeas relief by rejecting constitutional claims on their merits, ‘the petitioner must
demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims debatable or wrong.’”3 When the district court denies the petition on procedural grounds
without reaching the merits, the petitioner must show “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.”4
1 Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003).
2 Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)).
3 McGowen v. Thaler, 675 F.3d 482, 498 (5th Cir. 2012) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000)).
4 Id. (quoting Slack, 529 U.S. at 484).
1
The petitioner must demonstrate “‘something more than the absence of frivolity or the
existence of mere ‘good faith’ on his or her part.’”> However, a COA should not be denied “merely
because [the court] believes the applicant will not demonstrate an entitlement to relief.” In addition
“any doubts as to whether a COA should be granted are resolved in the petitioner’s favor,”’ and the
severity of the penalty may be a consideration in deciding whether a petitioner has made a “substantial
showing.”®
For the reasons set forth in this Court’s Order and Reasons, Petitioner’s claims brought under
Section 2254 are untimely.” Moreover, this issue would not engender debate among reasonable jurists.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability is DENIED.
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this 23rd_ day of August, 2019.
NANNETTE JOLI 3 TE BROWN
CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
> Id. (quoting Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 338).
® Id. (quoting Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 337).
1d.
8 See id.; Hill v. Johnson, 2010 F.3d 481 484 (5th Cir. 2000) (“[W]e may consider the severity of his penalty in
determining whether he has met his ‘substantial showing’ burden.”’).
° A certificate of appealability is not necessary for claims presented under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Canady v. Cockrell,
54 F. App'x 406 (Sth Cir. 2002) (citing Ojo v. INS, 106 F.3d 680, 681-82 (Sth Cir.1997).