Harris Ford v. Patsy Chavis, No. 14-7287 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7287 HARRIS EMANUEL FORD, Petitioner – Appellant, v. PATSY CHAVIS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (5:13-hc-02268-D) Submitted: November 6, 2014 Decided: November 13, 2014 Before GREGORY, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Harris Emanuel Ford, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Harris Emanuel Ford seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as successive. justice or The order is judge issues a not appealable certificate U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). of unless a circuit appealability. 28 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 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 Ford has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 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 2 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3