Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-02100/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-02100-0/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

Petitioner had not filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus.

08cv2100

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTOINE DAVIS,

Petitioner,

v.

M.A. SMELOSKY, Warden

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 08cv2100 JAH (RBB)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

On November 11, 2008, Petitioner, appearing pro se filed a motion for enlargement

of time to file petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1

 This

Court denied the motion without prejudice upon finding the Court is without jurisdiction

to extend the one-year statute or limitations of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A)-(D). On

December 8, 2008, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal (Doc. No. 3) and motion for a

certificate of appealability (Doc. No. 4). 

A certificate of appealability is authorized “if the applicant has made a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To meet this

threshold showing, a petitioner must show : (1) the issues are debatable among jurists of

reason; or (2) that a court could resolve the issues in a different manner; or (3) that the

questions are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. Lambright v.

Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022, 1024-25 (9th Cir. 2000)(citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473

(2000) and Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983)). 

Case 3:08-cv-02100-JAH-RBB Document 5 Filed 12/11/08 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 08cv2100

Petitioner seeks to appeal the Court’s denial of the motion for enlargement of time.

He maintains the ruling was erroneous, because he is entitled to a finding of an

impediment under section 2244(d)(1)(B) or equitable tolling. This Court finds that a

certificate of appealability is not warranted in this instance because the denial of the

motion for enlargement of time to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus under the

circumstances is not an issue debatable among jurists of reason nor could any other court

resolve the issue in a different manner. Lambright, 220 F.3d at 1024-25. Accordingly,

this Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion for a certificate of appealability.

DATED: December 10, 2008

JOHN A. HOUSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-02100-JAH-RBB Document 5 Filed 12/11/08 Page 2 of 2