Christora Clark v. Harold Clarke ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7718
CHRISTORA RAY CLARK,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD CLARKE, Dir. D.O.C.,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:14-cv-01434-LMB-IDD)
Submitted: March 17, 2015 Decided: March 20, 2015
Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christora Ray Clark, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Christora Ray Clark seeks to appeal the district court’s
order finding that his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition is
successive and dismissing it without prejudice on that basis.
The order is 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
Clark has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny
a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
2
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3