Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01266/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01266-3/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

WAYLAND DEE KIRKLAND, No. CIV S-02-1266-DFL-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. ORDER

D.K. BUTLER, et al.,

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is petitioner’s notice of

appeal, which is also construed as a request for a certificate of appealability.

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has timely filed a notice of appeal of

this court's September 26, 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

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

Case 2:02-cv-01266-JAM-CMK Document 107 Filed 05/03/07 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

2

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, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s request for a certificate

of appealability is denied.

DATED: May 2, 2007

/s/ David F. Levi 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-01266-JAM-CMK Document 107 Filed 05/03/07 Page 2 of 2