Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Augustus Nelson v. Ken Clark

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


October 7, 2011

AUGUSTUS NELSON,
PETITIONER,
v.
KEN CLARK, WARDEN,
RESPONDENT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Irma E. Gonzalez, Chief Judge United States District Court

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY [Doc. No. 36]

Presently before the Court is Petitioner's motion for a certificate of appealability. [Doc. No. 36.] On August 23, 2011, the Court dismissed Petitioner's petition for habeas corpus as barred by the statute of limitations and denied Petitioner a certificate of appealability. [Doc. No. 33.] Accordingly, the Court treats the present motion as a motion for reconsideration of the Court's prior order denying Petitioner a certificate of appealibility.

A petitioner complaining of detention arising from state court proceedings must obtain a certificate of appealability to file an appeal of the final order in a federal habeas proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). The district court may issue a certificate of appealability if the petitioner "has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." Id. § 2253(c)(2). To make a "substantial showing" when the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds, the petitioner must show "that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the 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).

After reviewing the petition, this motion, the Court's prior order, and other related papers, the Court again concludes that Petitioner has not made a "substantial showing" of the denial of a constitutional right. Reasonable jurists would not find it debatable whether the Court was correct in its procedural ruling on the statute of limitations issue. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner's motion for a certificate of appealability with respect to all of Petitioner's claims.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20111007

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.