Jason Thompson v. Christopher Zych

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7256
JASON THOMPSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
CHRISTOPHER ZYCH,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Norman K. Moon, Senior
District Judge. (7:15-cv-00444-NKM-RSB)
Submitted: January 25, 2017 Decided: February 1, 2017
Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jason Thompson, Appellant Pro Se. Sara Bugbee Winn, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Jason Thompson, a District of Columbia prisoner, seeks to
appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28
U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition.1 The order is not appealable
unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability.2 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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 (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.
1 Thompson challenges disciplinary action taken against him
while he was housed at the Federal Correctional Institution in
Bennettsville, South Carolina.
2 Because Thompson was convicted in a District of Columbia
court, he is required to obtain a certificate of appealability
in order to appeal the denial of his § 2241 petition. See
Madley v. United States Parole Comm’n, 278 F.3d 1306 (D.C. Cir.
2002).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Thompson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. Thompson’s motion for
appointment of counsel is denied. 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

-- 3 of 3 --