LAW.coLAW.co

JOHNSON v. OLSEN (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.2021-05-28No. No. 21-6102

Summary

Holding. The appeal is dismissed, and a certificate of appealability is denied because Johnson has not made the requisite showing of a substantial constitutional question.

Deandre Johnson, an incarcerated person, sought to appeal a district court order that dismissed his federal habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction. To proceed with an appeal in this context, Johnson was required to obtain a certificate of appealability by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could view the district court's decision as debatable or incorrect. The appellate court independently examined the record and determined that Johnson failed to satisfy this threshold requirement.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

  • Requirements for obtaining a certificate of appealability in habeas petitions
  • Standard for demonstrating substantial showing of constitutional rights denial
  • Jurisdictional dismissal of federal habeas petition

Procedural posture

Johnson appealed the district court's dismissal of his section 2241 habeas petition on jurisdictional grounds to a circuit court of appeals.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

Deandre Johnson, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district courts order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Johnsons 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district courts assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74, 197 L.Ed.2d 1 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41, 132 S.Ct. 641, 181 L.Ed.2d 619 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Johnson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Johnsons motion for a venue transfer and/or appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

PER CURIAM:

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.