Henry Lucas, Jr. v. S. Young, No. 12-7439 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7439 HENRY J. LUCAS, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, v. S. K. YOUNG, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, District Judge. (7:11-cv-00608-MFU-RSB) Submitted: March 29, 2013 Decided: April 8, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry J. Lucas, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Erin M. Kulpa, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Henry court s order petition. or judge J. Lucas, denying relief seeks on to his 28 appeal U.S.C. the district § 2254 (2006) The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). issue Jr., absent a appealability. 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. of showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). of a 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 Cockrell, (2000); (2003). see Miller-El v. 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 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 Lucas has not made the requisite showing. * * Accordingly, we Assuming, without deciding, that the district court failed to address some of Lucas ineffective assistance of counsel claims, those claims do not warrant the issuance of a certificate of appealability. 2 deny Lucas motion for the appointment of counsel, 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
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.
