Parvin v. Cate
Filing
27
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 03/29/10 denying 26 Motion for Certificate of Appealability. The clerk of the court is directed to process petitioner's appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. (Plummer, M)
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 vs. MATTHEW CATE, et al., Respondents. / Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has timely filed a notice of appeal of this court's March 1, 2010 dismissal of his application for a writ of habeas corpus as barred by the statute of limitations. Petitioner has also filed a motion for a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Rule 11, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254; Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A certificate of appealability may issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 "only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The court must either issue a certificate of appealability indicating which issues satisfy the required showing or must state the reasons why such a certificate should not issue. Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Where, as here, the petition was dismissed on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability "should issue if the prisoner can show: (1) `that jurists of reason would find it 1 ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JOHN ALAN PARVIN, Petitioner, No. 2:09-cv-2198-JFM (HC)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling'; and (2) `that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right.'" Morris v. Woodford, 229 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). After careful review of the entire record herein, this court finds that petitioner has not satisfied the first requirement for issuance of a certificate of appealability in this case. Specifically, there is no showing that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether this action is time-barred. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Petitioner's March 23, 2010 motion for a certificate of appealability is denied; and 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to process petitioner's appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. DATED: March 29, 2010.
12 p a r v2 1 9 8 .c o a p ro
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
