Poulson v. Warden Ross Correctional Institution, No. 2:2011cv01067 - Document 32 (S.D. Ohio 2013)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER - Petitioner's request for certificate of appealability is DENIED. Signed by Judge Algenon L. Marbley on December 10, 2013. (bc1)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION LOWELL P. POULSON, CASE NO. 2:11-CV-1067 JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY Magistrate Judge Kemp Petitioner, v. WARDEN, ROSS CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent. OPINION AND ORDER On June 24, 2013, final judgment was entered dismissing the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter now is before the Court on Petitioner's notice of appeal and request for a certificate of appealability. For the reasons that follow, Petitioner's request for a certificate of appealability is DENIED. Petitioner asserts that he was denied a fair trial based on a constitutionally unreliable witness identification of him as one of the armed robbers of a Donatos Pizza and because the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions. The Court dismissed both of these claims on the merits. When a claim has been denied on the merits, a certificate of appealability may issue only if the petitioner "has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This standard is a codification of Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983). Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484. To make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a petitioner must show that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were " 'adequate to deserve 1 encouragement to proceed further.' "Barefoot, 463 U.S ., at 893, andn. 4 .... ld. Petitioner has failed to meet this standard here. His request for a certificate of appealability therefore is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.