William Baggett v. Joseph Hall; Reuben Franklin Young

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6876
WILLIAM BAGGETT,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
JOSEPH HALL; REUBEN FRANKLIN YOUNG,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 11-6877
JAMES POWELL,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
SANDRA THOMAS; REUBEN FRANKLIN YOUNG,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 11-6878
LEROY RICHARDSON,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
HERBERT JACKSON; REUBEN FRANKLIN YOUNG,

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 11-6879
JOSEPH SEABORN,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
OLIVER WASHINGTON, SUPT.; REUBEN FRANKLIN YOUNG,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (5:10-hc-02226-D; 5:10-hc-02227-D;
5:10-hc-02228-D; 5:10-hc-02230-D)
Submitted: June 14, 2012 Decided: June 19, 2012
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sarah Jessica Farber, NORTH CAROLINA PRISONER LEGAL SERVICES,
INC., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellants. Clarence Joe
DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Mary Carla
Hollis, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, William Baggett, James
Powell, LeRoy Richardson, and Joseph Seaborn seek to appeal the
district court’s order denying relief on their 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(2006) petitions. The order is not appealable unless a circuit
justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). 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). 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 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38
(2003). 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 Baggett, Powell, Richardson, and Seaborn have not made the
requisite showings. Accordingly, we deny their motions for
certificates of appealability and dismiss the appeals. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

-- 3 of 4 --

4
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 4 of 4 --