IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
November 20, 2012
JESSE L. YOUNGBLOOD, PETITIONER,
R.J. DONOVAN WARDEN, RESPONDENT.
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has timely filed a notice of appeal of this court's September 20, 2012 dismissal of his application for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that it was filed beyond the applicable one-year statute of limitations. Before petitioner can appeal this decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); 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 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)).
In the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations filed on August 6, 2012, petitioner was ordered to address in his objections to the findings and recommendations whether a certificate of appealability should issue. Petitioner failed to file any objections. In addition, 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 that the petition was filed beyond the one-year statute of limitations. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability should not issue in this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.