Johnson v. Warden Chillicothe Correctional Institution, No. 2:2015cv00971 - Document 22 (S.D. Ohio 2016)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER - Denying certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge James L. Graham on 9/26/2016. (ds)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
Download PDF
Johnson v. Warden Chillicothe Correctional Institution Doc. 22 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION VINCENT JOHNSON, CASE NO. 2:15-CV-00971 JUDGE JAMES L. GRAHAM Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers Petitioner, v. WARDEN, CHILLICOTHE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent. OPINION AND ORDER On September 15, 2016, Judgment was entered dismissing the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 19.) This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s September 21, 2016, Notice of Appeal (ECF No. 20), which the Court construes as a request for a certificate of appealability. For the reasons that follow, Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability is DENIED. Petitioner challenges his convictions after a jury trial on two counts of rape, one count of attempted rape, one count of kidnapping, one count of abduction, and one count of domestic violence, with specifications. He asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by permitting admission of DNA evidence, and that he thereby was denied due process and equal protection (claim one); and that he was denied his right to grand jury findings due to an improper amendment of the indictment (claim two). The Court dismissed both of Petitioner’s claims on the merits. “In contrast to an ordinary civil litigant, a state prisoner who seeks a writ of habeas corpus in federal court holds no automatic right to appeal from an adverse decision by a district court.” Jordan v. Fisher, -- U.S. --. --, 135 S.Ct. 2647, 2650 (2015); 28 U.S.C. § Dockets.Justia.com 2253(c)(1)(requiring a habeas petitioner to obtain a certificate of appealability in order to appeal.) The petitioner must establish the 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 (2000) (recognizing codification of Barefoot in 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)). 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 encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack, 529 U.S. at 484 (quoting Barefoot, 463 U.S., at 893 n. 4). Petitioner has failed to meet this standard here. His claims plainly fail to warrant relief, and he never presented claim one to the state courts as a federal constitutional issue, thereby precluding relief in these proceedings. Reasonable jurists would not debate whether the Court properly dismissed Petitioner’s claims on this basis. Therefore, Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: September 26, 2016 ________s/James L. Graham______ JAMES L. GRAHAM United States District Judge 2