Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00935/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00935-4/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

JOHN MONTUE,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-0935 LKK JFM P

vs.

TERESA A. SCHWARTZ, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

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

this court’s August 11, 2005 dismissal of his application for a writ of habeas corpus for failure to

obtain authorization from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to proceed

with a second or successive habeas corpus petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). Petitioner has

also requested an extension of time to file a request for a certificate of appealability pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) and 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).

Case 2:05-cv-00935-LKK -JFM Document 13 Filed 09/13/05 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

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

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

was required to, and did not, first obtain authorization from the court of appeals to proceed with

this second or successive habeas corpus application. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability

should not issue in this action.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. A certificate of appealability should not issue in this action;

2. Petitioner’s August 29, 2005 request for an extension of time is denied as

unnecessary; and

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

States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

DATED: September 12, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/mont0935.coapro

Case 2:05-cv-00935-LKK -JFM Document 13 Filed 09/13/05 Page 2 of 2