Eiland v. Russell County District Court (INMATE 1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION DANA LEE EILAND, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 3:18-cv-799-WKW ) [WO] RUSSELL COUNTY DISTRICT ) COURT, et al., ) ) Respondents. ) ORDER On January 27, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation to which no timely objections have been filed. (Doc. # 12.) Upon an independent review of the record and the Recommendation, it is ORDERED that the Recommendation is ADOPTED and that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. Final judgment will be entered separately.

A certificate of appealability will not be issued. For a petitioner to obtain a certificate of appealability, he must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This showing requires that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). And, where a petition is denied on procedural grounds, he “must show not only that one or more of the claims he has raised presents a substantial constitutional issue, but also that there is a substantial issue about the correctness of the procedural ground on which the petition was denied.” Gordon v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corrs., 479 F.3d 1299, 1300 (11th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). “A ‘substantial question’ about the procedural ruling means that the correctness of it under the law as it now stands is debatable among jurists of reason.” Id. Because reasonable jurists would not find the denial of Petitioner’s § 2241 motion debatable, a certificate of appealability is DENIED.

DONE this 23rd day of March, 2020. /s/ W. Keith Watkins UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE