Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00856/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00856-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN LEE ROBINSON,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-03-0856 LKK JFM P

vs.

SILVIA GARCIA, Warden, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has timely filed a notice of appeal of

this court’s August 22, 2005 denial of his motion for relief from the judgment entered in this

action on February 2, 2004 dismissing this action as time-barred. Petitioner has also filed a

motion for a certificate of appealability. See 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 matters at issue concern 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)

Case 2:03-cv-00856-LKK-JFM Document 45 Filed 01/20/06 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

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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1604 (2000)).

Both this court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

denied petitioner’s requests for a certificate of appealability from the judgment entered in this

action in February 2004. For the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s April 25, 2005

amended findings and recommendations, petitioner has not made a showing that would warrant

relief from that judgment.

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 whether petitioner

has made a showing sufficient to require relief from this court’s determination that this action is

time-barred. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s September 16, 2005 request for a certificate of appealability is

denied; and

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to process petitioner’s appeal to the United

States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

DATED: January 20, 2006.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/robi0856.coapro2

Case 2:03-cv-00856-LKK-JFM Document 45 Filed 01/20/06 Page 2 of 2