Opinion
Case No. 06-61526-CIV-COHN/SNOW.
March 24, 2008
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Petitioner Steadroy Williams' Motion for Certificate of Appealability [DE 20]. The Court has carefully considered the matter and is otherwise fully advised in the premises.
This Court adopted the Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Snow, overruled Williams' Objections, and dismissed Williams' Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus as time-barred on March 6, 2008 [DE 18], declining to consider arguments regarding the timeliness of Mr. Williams' Petition that were raised for the first time in his Objections to the Report and Recommendation. Mr. Williams now files the instant Motion for Certificate of Appealability.
The precise relief requested is unclear from Petitioner's Motion. The Motion is labeled a "Motion for Issuance of a Certificate of Appealability," and requests in the introductory paragraph that the Court issue a Certificate of Appealability. However, the Motion then goes on to argue the timeliness of the Petition, and in the "wherefore" paragraph at the end of the Motion, Petitioner requests that his objections be sustained, and that the Report and Recommendation be rejected. To the extent that the Motion may request reconsideration of this Court's prior Order Adopting the Report and Recommendation, that request is denied. The Court will otherwise construe this Motion as a Motion for Certificate of Appealability, and apply the appropriate legal standard.
To grant a Certificate of Appealability, the Court must conclude that "jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Although this Court declined to consider the arguments regarding timeliness that were raised for the first time in the Objections, the Court acknowledges that the Eleventh Circuit has not squarely decided whether or not a District Court has this discretion. See Stephens v. Tolbert, 471 F.3d 1173, 1177 (11th Cir. 2006) (declining to rule on whether or not a district court must consider arguments raised for the first time in objections to a report and recommendation). The Court thus concludes that jurists of reason could find it debatable whether the Court was required to consider Mr. Williams' arguments regarding timeliness, and it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Petitioner's Motion for Certificate of Appealability [DE 20] is GRANTED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida.