Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00042/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00042-8/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN RICHARD GIBSON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

LEA ANN CHRONES, WARDEN, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05-cv-0042-AWI-LJO-HC

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

Petitioner is a state prisoner who filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On October 13, 2006, the court adopted the Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations and dismissed the petition for violating 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)’s

one year statute of limitations. Petitioner then filed numerous notices of appeal.

This action is now before the court to determine if the court should issue a

certificate of appealability. A prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute

entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in

certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). The controlling

statute is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides as follows:

 (a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 before a

district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the court of

appeals for the circuit in which the proceeding is held.

 (b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding to test the

validity of a warrant to remove to another district or place for commitment or trial

a person charged with a criminal offense against the United States, or to test the

validity of such person's detention pending removal proceedings.

 (c)(1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an

appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from–

 (A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention

complained of arises out of process issued by a State court; or

Case 1:05-cv-00042-AWI-GSA Document 68 Filed 02/22/07 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

 (B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.

 (2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the

applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

 (3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which

specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).

If the court denies a Petitioner’s petition, the court may only issue a certificate of appealability “if

jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's resolution of his constitutional claims or

that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to

proceed further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

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

prisoner's underlying constitutional claim, a certificate of appealability should issue, and an

appeal of the district court's order may be taken, if the petitioner shows, at least, that jurists of

reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a

constitutional right, and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court

was correct in its procedural ruling. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

In the present case, the court finds that reasonable jurists would not disagree with

this court’s determination that Plaintiff’s claims concerning the denial of his parole are barred by

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)’s one year limitations period. Given Petitioner did not file his petition

concerning parole in the California Supreme Court or his prior petition in this court until after the

limitation period had already expired, the court finds reasonable jurists would not disagree that

Plaintiff is not entitled to equitable tolling. The only petition filed in state court within the

limitation period did not concern the parole denial at issue in this action. Accordingly, the court

hereby ORDERS that no certificate of appealability shall be issued.

The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to serve a copy of this order on the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 21, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00042-AWI-GSA Document 68 Filed 02/22/07 Page 2 of 2