United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Western Division
ORDER REGARDING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AND
MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
DAVID
BRAMLETTE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This
Cause is before the Court on a Motion to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis on Appeal [Doc. 46] and an Application for
Certificate of Appealability [Doc. 47');">47] filed by pro se
Petitioner Dexter Watson. Having considered the record,
Watson39;s briefing, and applicable statutory and case law,
the Court finds as follows:
I.
BACKGROUND
Watson
is serving a life sentence for murder in state custody. He
petitioned this Court for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 after exhausting state remedies. [Doc. 1]
Magistrate
Judge Michael T. Parker recommended that the Court deny
Watson habeas relief. [Doc. 31] After reviewing de novo
Magistrate Judge Parker39;s Report and Recommendation, the
Court found habeas relief unwarranted, adopted Magistrate
Judge Parker39;s Report and Recommendation, and dismissed
Watson39;s Petition with prejudice. [Docs. 42, 43]
Watson
now asks the Court to (1) certify six issues for appeal to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and
(2) permit him to appeal in forma pauperis
(“IFP”).
II.
DISCUSSION
A.
Certificate of Appealability
Before
Watson can appeal the Court39;s denial of habeas relief on
an issue, he must obtain a certificate of appealability
(“COA”) on the issue. 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(1); Fed. R. App. p. 22(b); Buck v. Davis,
137 S.Ct. 759');">137 S.Ct. 759, 773 (2017).
The
Court will grant a COA on an issue if Watson makes “a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This
“substantial showing” requires Watson to
demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the
Court39;s denial of relief “debatable or wrong,
” or that the issues Watson has presented
“deserve encouragement to proceed further.”
United States v. Arledge, 3 F.3d 47');">471');">873 F.3d 47');">471, 47');">473 (5th
Cir. 2017) (internal citations omitted).
The
Court decides whether to grant a COA “without full
consideration of the factual or legal bases adduced in
support of the claims.” Rhoades v. Davis, 852
F.3d 422, 427 (5th Cir. 2017) (quoting Buck, 137 S.Ct. at
773); see also Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 123 S.Ct. 1029');">123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039 (2003) (“The
COA determination . . . requires an overview of the claims in
the habeas petition and a general assessment of their
merits.”).
Watson
asks the Court for a COA on six issues:
1) “Whether the evidence was sufficient to convict
Petitioner of murder”;
2) “Whether the jury was instructed on the essential
elements of the charge [sic] crime”;
“Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failure to
do a thoroughly [sic] pretrial investigation”;
4) “Whether trial counsel was ineffective for rejecting
Petitioner [sic] lesser offense instruction of
...