# Magee v. Hooper

> District Court, E.D. Louisiana · December 31, 2019

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10185126

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Louisiana
- **Decided:** December 31, 2019
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10185126

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

TEDDY MAGEE CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 18-3988

TIMOTHY HOPPER, WARDEN SECTION “G”(3)

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
The petitioner must demonstrate “‘something more than the absence of frivolity or the

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).
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 adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation, Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right. Moreover, these issues would not engender debate among reasonable jurists. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability is DENIED.
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this31st day of December, 2019.

NANNETTE J ETTE 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).
7 Id.
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.”).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10185126. Public record. Not legal advice.