Stefen Harris v. David Dunlap , 687 F. App'x 268 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7518
STEFEN E. HARRIS,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
DAVID DUNLAP, Warden,
Respondent – Appellee,
and
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
Hill. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (0:16-cv-00858-HMH)
Submitted: March 22, 2017 Decided: April 28, 2017
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DIAZ, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stefen E. Harris, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Stefen Emira Harris, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition without prejudice as an unauthorized
second or successive petition. 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 Harris 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 presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3