Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07778/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07778-2/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)

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUIS ANTONIO HERNANDEZ,

Petitioner,

 v.

JAMES E. TILTON,

Respondent. /

No. C 06-07778 WHA

ORDER GRANTING

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

Petitioner Luis Antonio Hernandez filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this case

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. By order dated May 14, 2007, this Court dismissed the petition on

the ground that it was filed beyond the one-year statute of limitations. Judgment was entered in

favor of respondent the same day. On June 4, 2007, petitioner filed a notice of appeal and an

application to proceed in forma pauperis. Although petitioner did not request a certificate of

appealability, the notice of appeal will be deemed such a request under 28 U.S.C. 2253(c). 

United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997).

A district court judge shall grant a certificate of appealability “only if the applicant has

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

Where a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, the showing required

to satisfy Section 2253(c) is straightforward: the petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable

jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or

wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483 (2000). When the district court, as here, denies a

habeas 

Case 3:06-cv-07778-WHA Document 18 Filed 06/26/07 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

petition on procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner’s underlying constitutional claim,

a certificate of appealability should issue when the petitioner shows 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.

Given this standard, the Court certifies the following issues for appeal:

1. Whether petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling because

of his attorney’s miscalculations of the limitations period

and complications while petitioner was switching

attorneys; and

2. Regardless of the timeliness of the instant petition, whether

petitioner is entitled to relief under the standard set forth in 

Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995). 

As mentioned, petitioner also seeks to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis under

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a). Under the rule, a party to a district-court action

who desires to appeal in forma pauperis must file a motion in the district court and attach an

affidavit thereto that: (i) shows the party’s inability to pay or give security for fees and costs;

(ii) claims an entitlement to redress; and (iii) states the issues that the party intends to present on

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1). Having reviewed petitioner’s submission in this case, this

order finds that petitioner is indigent and may proceed on appeal without prepaying or giving

security for fees and costs. His motion to proceed in forma pauperis is thus GRANTED.

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

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 26, 2007. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-07778-WHA Document 18 Filed 06/26/07 Page 2 of 2