Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01784/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01784-2/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 

19cv1784 - MMA (RBB) 

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ERICA D. HAYWOOD, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

SAN DIEGO SHERIFF, et al., 

Respondents. 

 Case No. 19cv1784 - MMA (RBB) 

ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE 

CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY 

Erica D. Haywood (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a 

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Doc. No. 1. On 

September 24, 2019, the Court dismissed the petition without prejudice as barred under 

the abstention doctrine. The Court further determined that Petitioner’s claims should be 

brought in an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983—not in a § 2254 petition. Doc. No. 3 

at 1, 3. 

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases states that “the district 

court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse 

to the applicant.” A certificate of appealability (“COA”) is not issued unless there is “a 

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

When a petition is, as here, dismissed on procedural grounds, a COA should be granted 

only if two elements are satisfied: (1) “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether 

Case 3:19-cv-01784-MMA-RBB Document 11 Filed 10/10/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2 

19cv1784 - MMA (RBB) 

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

the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right”; and (2) “jurists of 

reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural 

ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484–85 (2000). As each of these components 

is a “threshold inquiry,” the federal court “may find that it can dispose of the application 

in a fair and prompt manner if it proceeds first to resolve the issue whose answer is more 

apparent from the record and arguments.” Id. at 485. Petitioner has not shown that 

jurists of reason would find anything debatable in the procedural ruling that the petition is 

barred by the abstention doctrine and should be brought instead as a § 1983 action.1

 

Thus, the Court need not decide whether the application states a valid constitutional 

claim. See id. at 485. 

Accordingly, the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability in this 

case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 10, 2019

 _____________________________ 

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 

United States District Judge 

                                               

1

 In fact, Petitioner filed a § 1983 action in this District on October 9, 2019. See Complaint, Haywood v. 

U.C. San Diego et al. (S.D. Cal. 2019) (No. 3:19-cv-1955 MMA (BGS)). 

Case 3:19-cv-01784-MMA-RBB Document 11 Filed 10/10/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2