Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

89 F. App'x 825

Legg v. Helsel

U.S. Courts of Appeals

Decided February 25, 2004

U.S. Courts of Appeals · decided 2004-02-25

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Slack v. McDaniel · Miller-El v. Cockrell Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division · Rose v. Lee

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion · Decided 2004-02-25

PER CURIAM.

¶1 William Allen Legg seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) without prejudice. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Legg has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Legg’s motions for injunction, habeas corpus and discovery; deny a certificate of appealability; and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

¶2 DISMISSED

/89/fappx/825 · .json · Public domain