Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-03024/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-03024-3/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

MAXIMILLIAN KUNITZ, SR.,

Petitioner, No. CV 08-3024-WBS-JFM (HC)

vs.

MATTHEW CATE,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, has timely filed a notice

of appeal of this court’s November 20, 2009 dismissal of his application for a writ of habeas

corpus as barred by the statute of limitations. Before petitioner can appeal this decision, a

certificate of appealability must issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) and 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 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

Case 2:08-cv-03024-WBS -JFM Document 33 Filed 02/04/10 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

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, 484 (2000)).

After 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 this action

is barred by the statute of limitations for the reasons set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s Findings

and Recommendations filed November 9, 2009. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this court declines to issue a

certificate of appealability. 

DATED: February 3, 2010

 

 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/kuni3024.coapro

Case 2:08-cv-03024-WBS -JFM Document 33 Filed 02/04/10 Page 2 of 2