Kenneth Hall v. Michael Chapman , 598 F. App'x 215 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7687
KENNETH C. HALL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL L. CHAPMAN, Sheriff,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga,
District Judge. (1:14-cv-01255-AJT-TRJ)
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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kenneth C. Hall, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth C. Hall seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition without
prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies. 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
Hall has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny
Hall’s motions for 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
2
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3