Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01592/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01592-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY W. STEWART,

Petitioner,

v.

J. MACOMBER, Warden, and BRIAN G. 

SMILEY,

Respondents.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01592-SMS

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY

(Doc.11) 

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

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On March 2, 2016, the Court issued an order dismissing the petition as 

successive. Doc. 6. On March 17, 2016, a notice of appeal was filed with the Ninth Circuit Court 

of Appeals. Doc. 9. In an order dated June 20, 2016, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the 

Court for the limited purpose of granting or denying a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c). 

A certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has made 

a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” § 

2253(c)(2). That standard is met when “reasonable jurists could debate 

whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been 

resolved in a different manner.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 

(2000). 

Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257, 1263–64 (2016). Here, the petition was dismissed for lack 

of subject-matter jurisdiction. As stated in the March 2, 2016 order, Petitioner made “no showing 

Case 1:15-cv-01592-SMS Document 12 Filed 07/28/16 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

that he has obtained prior leave from the Ninth Circuit to file his successive petition attacking the 

conviction” under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(3).

Accordingly, because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right in that reasonable jurists could not debate about the Court’s dismissal of the

petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of 

appealability. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 27, 2016 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01592-SMS Document 12 Filed 07/28/16 Page 2 of 2