Ensey v. Mullins
Ensey v. Mullins
Opinion
ORDER DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Garry Ensey, an Oklahoma state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to challenge the district court’s denial and dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus, in which he asserted that his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial and his rights under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1347, were violated.
To obtain a COA under [28 U.S.C.] § 2253(c), a habeas prisoner must make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a demonstration that ... includes showing 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, 483-84, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000) (citation and quotation omitted). 1
Having carefully considered Mr. Ensey’s application for a COA and his opening brief, the record, and the applicable law, we determine that he has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, we DENY his request for a COA and DISMISS the appeal. 2
. We do not consider Mr. Ensey’s assertion that his right to a speedy trial was violated under the Oklahoma Constitution and Oklahoma's statutory provision concerning speedy trials, Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 812.1. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68, 112 S.Ct. 475, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991) (”[I]t is not the province of a federal habeas court to reexamine state-court determinations on state-law questions.”).
. Mr. Ensey filed with this court a request to proceed in forma pauperis (ifp). He was granted permission to proceed ifp in the dis *902 trict court. R., Doc. 18. Since the district court did not certify in writing that his appeal was not 'taken in good faith, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), his ifp status continues in this court without further order. See Fed. R.App. P. 24(a)(3). His ifp request is therefore denied as moot.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.