BRADLEY v. JOHNSON, (W.D.Tex. 2001)

DAVID BRIONES, U.S. District Judge

BEFORE THE COURT is Petitioner James Patrick Bradley's Motion for Issuance of a Certificate of Appealability ("COA"), filed in the above-captioned cause on August 28, 2000. After due consideration, the Court is of the opinion that the motion should be denied for the reasons that follow.

Petitioner commenced this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 action October 7, 1999. On August 9, 2000, the Court dismissed Petitioner's Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus and entered judgment in Respondent's favor, finding the Application time-barred. The instant motion followed.

Title 28 U.S.C. § 2253 precludes any appeal from dismissal of a § 2254 cause unless a circuit justice or district judge first has issued a COA. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 2253(c)(1) (West Supp. 2000). To obtain a COA, a petitioner must make "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." Id. at § 2253(c)(2). To make such a showing, a petitioner need not show that he should prevail on the merits. Rather, a petitioner must demonstrate that there is an issue which is debatable among jurists of reason; that another court could resolve an issue in a different manner; or that a question is adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. See Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n. 4 (1983); Hallmark v. Johnson, 118 F.3d 1073, 1076 (5th Cir. 1997). If a district court grants a COA, it must "indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required." 28 U.S.C.A. § 2253(c)(3); see also Cannon v. Johnson, 134 F.3d 683, 685 (5th Cir. 1998); Muniz v. Johnson, 114 F.3d 43, 45 (5th Cir. 1997).

Here, the Court dismissed Petitioner's cause in August 2000 because the Petition was time-barred. Having reviewed the Court's Order dismissing Petitioner's Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus and the showing Petitioner makes with respect to the instant motion, the Court finds that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that any issue is debatable among jurists of reason; that a court could resolve any issue in a different manner; or that any question is adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. Rather, the Court finds the analysis fairly straight-forward. Hence, after due consideration, the Court is of the opinion that Petitioner's Motion for Certificate of Appealability should be denied because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner James Patrick Bradley's Motion for Issuance of a Certificate of Appealability is DENIED.