Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-02782/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-02782-1/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)

---

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

Order Denying Petitioner’s Motion for Certificate of Appealability 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.04\Barnett782coaden 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL BARNETT, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

MIKE KNOWLES, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 04-2782 JF (PR)

ORDER DENYING

PETITIONER’S MOTION

FOR CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY 

(Docket No. 29)

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On March 29, 2006, the Court granted

Respondent’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the instant habeas petition as untimely

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). On May 5, 2006, Petitioner filed a motion to grant a

certificate of appealability. The Court construes Petitioner’s request as a notice of appeal.

 See Tinsley v. Borg, 895 F.2d 520, 523 (9th Cir. 1990) (treating timely pro se motion for

a certificate of probable cause as a timely notice of appeal). The Court concludes that the

notice of appeal is timely as Petitioner signed and dated the notice on April 29, 2006. See

Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (notice of appeal of pro se prisoner is deemed

filed when it is delivered to prison officials for forwarding to the district court). 

**Original filed 5/17/06**

Case 5:04-cv-02782-JF Document 30 Filed 05/17/06 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

27

28

1

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

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

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

Order Denying Petitioner’s Motion for Certificate of Appealability 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.04\Barnett782coaden 2

The Court will deny the motion for a certificate of appealability (docket no. 29).

DISCUSSION 

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

without first obtaining a certificate of appealability (formerly known as a certificate of

probable cause to appeal). See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A 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). Upon the filing of a

notice of appeal and a request for a certificate of appealability (COA), the district court

shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the standard for issuing a certificate, or

state its reasons why a certificate should not be granted. See United States v. Asrar, 116

F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(3)). 

The Court dismissed the instant petition as untimely pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2244(d)(1). The Court concluded that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that he was entitled

to equitable tolling based upon the alleged circumstances that prevented him from filing a

timely federal habeas petition. Petitioner has not shown “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.” Slack v. McDaniel, 120 S. Ct. 1595, 1604 (2000). Accordingly,

the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion for a certificate of appealability (docket no. 29).

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

Appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).1

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

5/17/06

Case 5:04-cv-02782-JF Document 30 Filed 05/17/06 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

27

28

Order Denying Petitioner’s Motion for Certificate of Appealability 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.04\Barnett782coaden 3

A copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

Michael Barnett

P-07058

SATF - Corcoran

P.O. Box 5242

Corcoran, CA 93212

Laurence K. Sullivan 

CA State Attorney General’s Office

455 Golden Gate Avenue

Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102-7004

Case 5:04-cv-02782-JF Document 30 Filed 05/17/06 Page 3 of 3