Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00236/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00236-2/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

MICHAEL DAVIS, 

Petitioner, 2:04-cv-00236-GEB-KJM-P

vs.

J. SILVA, Warden, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has

timely filed a notice of appeal of this court's August 19, 2005

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has timely filed

a notice of appeal of this court's August 19, 2005 dismissal of

his application for a writ of habeas corpus for failure to

exhaust state remedies. Before petitioner can appeal this

decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. 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

Case 2:04-cv-00236-GEB-CHS Document 28 Filed 09/15/05 Page 1 of 3
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

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 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 has exhausted

state remedies. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability

should not issue in this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 14, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00236-GEB-CHS Document 28 Filed 09/15/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Case 2:04-cv-00236-GEB-CHS Document 28 Filed 09/15/05 Page 3 of 3