The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
BEAU LEDOUX CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 22-4341
TIM HOOPER, WARDEN SECTION: “G”(1)
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).
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 adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation, the petition is time barred. 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 31Stday of March, 2023.
NANNETTE J oN BROWN
CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 Id. (quoting Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 338).
6 Id. (quoting Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 337).
Td.
8 See id.; Hill v. Johnson, 2010 F.3d 481 484 (Sth Cir. 2000) (“[W]e may consider the severity of his penalty in
determining whether he has met his ‘substantial showing’ burden.”).