Clifford Jackson v. Dayena Corcoran, No. 13-6771 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6771 CLIFFORD ANTHONY JACKSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DAYENA CORCORAN, Warden; General of Maryland, DOUGLAS F. GANSLER, Attorney Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:13-cv-00213-PJM) Submitted: August 29, 2013 Decided: September 4, 2013 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clifford Anthony Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Clifford Anthony Jackson seeks to appeal the district court s paperless order denying his motion for a certificate of appealability petition. with respect to his 28 U.S.C. (2006) The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). issue § 2254 absent a A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. 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 Jackson has not made the requisite showing. We have previously rejected a motion for a certificate of appealability with respect to the denial of Jackson s habeas petition, see Jackson v. Corcoran, No. 13-6312 (Apr. 30, 2013) (unpublished), 2 and that determination is now the law of the case. See United States v. Aramony, 166 F.3d 655, 661 (4th Cir. 1999) (discussing doctrine). Accordingly, we deny Jackson s motion certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. for a We further deny as moot Jackson s motion to recuse Judges Motz, Davis, and Wynn. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
