Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01632/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01632-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

27

28 In an order issued simultaneously herewith, the Court has denied Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. 

1

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY AMAVISCA,

Petitioner,

v.

A.K. SCRIBNER, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 05-1632 SMS HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S REQUEST

FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

[Doc. 27]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the parties have consented to

the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. (Court Docs. 4, 10, 16.) 

 On December 8, 2006, the instant petition was dismissed, with prejudice, and judgment

was entered in favor of Respondent. (Court Docs. 24, 25.) On January 11, 2007, Petitioner filed

a motion for reconsideration. (Court Doc. 26.) On January 12, 2007, Petitioner filed a notice of 1

appeal and, on January 16, 2007, Petitioner filed an amended notice of appeal. (Court Docs. 27,

28.) Although no express request was made for a certificate of appealability, the notice of appeal

shall be deemed to constitute a request for a certificate. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); United States

v. Asrar, 108 F.3d 217, 218 (9th Cir. 1997).

 When the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching

the underlying constitutional claims, the petitioner must show, in order to obtain a certificate of

Case 1:05-cv-01632-SMS Document 30 Filed 01/25/07 Page 1 of 2
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

27

28

2

appealability: (1) that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition stated a valid

claim of a denial of a constitutional right; and (2) 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1604, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000). While both showings must be made to

obtain a certificate of appealability, “a court may find that it can dispose of the application in a

fair and prompt manner if it proceeds first to resolve the issue whose answer is more apparent

from the record and arguments.” 529 U.S. at 485, 120 S.Ct. at 1604. Where a plain procedural

bar is properly invoked, an appeal is not warranted. 529 U.S. at 484, 120 S.Ct. at 1604. 

The Court finds that Petitioner’s application for a certificate of appealablity must be

denied. Petitioner has not made any showing that the petition was improperly dismissed because

it was untimely. The Court does not find that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether

the petition was properly dismissed as time barred. 

Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for a certificate of appealability is DENIED.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 23, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01632-SMS Document 30 Filed 01/25/07 Page 2 of 2