Free Motion for Certificate of Appealability - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

---- -»~ eN-M-———~»—..~.-—»Mm—_....m~ra»u“..—»W.r.-r.r.rwr_r..-._.w" .. . .”t__ _
Case 3:03-cv-00573-PCD Document 27 Filed 08/31/2006 Page1 of 2
UNITED STATE'S DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
lil F “’`: i
f LEVERN GRANT h 1M ~¥.»* I
v. mb idbékhmpivdii 3(?3—cv-573 65co) I
` Jouu ARMs·1·RoNc H ~y_g¤mm:1_;_iyQl§§)FQ1'?;i/06 I
¤—‘=.*‘ *12%.221;, new
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
The appellant, pro-se, moves this Honorable United States
District Court pursuant to § 2253(c) of title 28, United States
Code, for a certificate of appealability in the above entitled
proceedings. In support hereof, the petitioner states the foll-
owing: C
ISSUE OF APPEAL I
I. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED WHEN IT DENIED THE I
APPELLANT OF AN OPPORTUNITY T0 BE HEARD AND DISMISSED j
HIS PETITION ? '
The petitioner, a Connecticut prison inmate, serving a substanial I
prison sentence for the charge of murder, was transfered by Connecticut I
Department of Corrections, ("D.0.C."), to the State of Virginia to con- I
tinue his said sentence. The appellant's legal mail from the court was
continuously mailed to the Garner Correctional Institution, ("GiC.I."),
ALTHOUGH the appellant notified the court clerk that he was transfered
to Virginia by the D.O.C.. Subsequently, the appellant's legal property '
was mis-placed by the D.O.C. which deprived the petitioner, unschooled in
the science of law, from attempting to articulate his claims.
As such, the respondent has not been prejudiced by the actions of I
the appelant and believe that they have an air—tight case against the ap- E
pellant's claim(s). Nonetheless, because the appellant could not re—produce I
facts and information mis—placed by the D.O.C., thus repondent, during his
transfer to Virginia, the district court dismissed his petition; claiming I
i
l

iiiiggéig;QEgégiggEgg;E; z3;;;aa;zzaaazaaz



fjfiaaaagagaaaazaseaaasaaaa;aEEEaaag
EEE§%aaasEg;ess:as;s;;riiiiiiEiifTiffTiii?ifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
EEEEégééiQggggéggg;5g


Case 3*03-cv-00573-PCD Document 27 Filed 08/31/2006 Page 2 of 2
[ ` ( 2)
I
` ul
T · it was untimely. (a few months outside the time frame of aedpa or
i AEDPA) As mentioned, through no fault of his own.
I Clearly, it is well settled, that if a petitioner can raise
{ an issue which is "debatable among jurists of reason," a certifi— l
l cate should be granted. Clark v. Collins, 956 F.2d 68 (5th Cir.), {
cert., denied 503 U.S. 901, 112 S. ct. 1254 (1992). As such, "oourts W
will go to particular pains to protect pro se litigants against con— §
sequences of technical errors if injustice would otherwise require" i
5
USS. v. Sancheg, 88 F.3d 1243 (D.C. cir. 1996). Therefore, "in1re— l
viewing pro se complaint(s), courts of appeal must imply standards i
less stringent than if complaint drafted by counsel." Qarker v. Cuoma, :
58 F.3d 814 (2nd Cir. 1995). As such, nothing less should be expeected
here in the district court. (SIC). {
CONCLUSION: {
Because the respondent has not been prejudiced, and the appellant i
has been deprived of an opportunity to be heard; through no fault of his 5
I
own, he should be allowed a certificate of appealability. {
RESPECTFULLY
SUBMITTEDS
CERTIFICATION: ' {
I hereby certify that a copy BY: . _
of the foregoing was mailed this LEVERN G ANTfA P LA T·PRO-§§ Q
17th day of August 2006 to: MACDOUGALL/WALKERIC-I.
1153 EAST STREET SOU$H
Jo Anne Sulik, A.S.A. SUFFIELD, CONN. 0608
300 Corporate Place
Rocky Hill, Ct. 06067
l \
l
1