Jamal Gethers v. Harold Clarke, No. 19-7523 (4th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-7523 JAMAL NATHAN GETHERS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:19-cv-00538-LMB-JFA) Submitted: March 31, 2020 Before MOTZ, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jamal Nathan Gethers, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Decided: May 15, 2020 PER CURIAM: Jamal Nathan Gethers seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2018) petition as untimely and denying reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2018). 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) (2018). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773–74 (2017). But 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140–41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). The district court found Gethers’s petition to be time barred. And Gethers’s informal brief fails to show that this dispositive procedural ruling is debatable. 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 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 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.
