Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-03549/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-03549-1/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES WANG,

Petitioner,

 vs.

DAVID PULIDO, et al.,

Respondents. /

No. C 09-3549 PJH (PR)

ORDER DENYING

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

This is a habeas case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed pro se by a state prisoner. The

court summarily dismissed the petition. Petitioner has filed a timely notice of appeal. 

Although he does not ask for a certificate of appealability (“COA”), the notice of appeal will

be deemed to be such a request. See United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th

Cir. 1997) (if no express request is made for a COA, the notice of appeal shall be deemed

to constitute a request for a certificate). 

A petitioner may not appeal a final order in a federal habeas corpus proceeding

without first obtaining a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App.

P. 22(b). Section 2253(c)(1) applies to an appeal of a final order entered on a procedural

question antecedent to the merits, for instance a dismissal on statute of limitations grounds,

as here. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483 (2000).

“Determining whether a COA should issue where the petition was dismissed on

procedural grounds has two components, one directed at the underlying constitutional

claims and one directed at the district court’s procedural holding.” Id. at 484-85. “When the

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

prisoner’s underlying constitutional claim, a COA should issue when the prisoner shows, at

Case 4:09-cv-03549-PJH Document 13 Filed 03/16/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

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.” Id. at 484. 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. Supreme Court

jurisprudence “allows and encourages” federal courts to first resolve the procedural issue,

as was done here. See id. 

The petition was dismissed because petitioner conceded in the petition itself that he

is no longer in custody on the probabtion revocation he wants to challenge, see Maleng v.

Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490-91 (1989) (habeas petitioner must be in custody under the

conviction or sentence under attack at the time the petition is filed), and because

completion of a revocation sentence moots any habeas challenge to it, see Spencer v.

Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 13 (1998). Jurists of reason would not find these points debatable. 

The request for a certificate of appealability implied from the notice of appeal is DENIED.

The clerk shall transmit the file, including a copy of this order, to the Court of

Appeals. See Fed. R.App.P. 22(b); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir.

1997). Petitioner may then ask the Court of Appeals to issue the certificate, see R.App.P.

22(b)(1), or if he does not, the notice of appeal will be construed as such a request, see

R.App.P. 22(b)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 16, 2010. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

P:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.09\WANG,C3549.COA.wpd

Case 4:09-cv-03549-PJH Document 13 Filed 03/16/10 Page 2 of 2