Thomas Mitchell, Jr. v. Harold Clarke , 623 F. App'x 118 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6843
THOMAS F. MITCHELL, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, VDOC Director,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (7:14-cv-00086-JLK-RSB)
Submitted: November 30, 2015 Decided: December 2, 2015
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas F. Mitchell, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. James Milburn
Isaacs, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Thomas F. Mitchell, Jr., a state prisoner, seeks to appeal
the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 (2012) petition, which the court also construed as a 28
U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. Mitchell also seeks to appeal
the district court’s order denying his postjudgment motion. The
orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). When the
district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would
find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38
(2003). 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. Slack,
529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Mitchell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
2
forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 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
3