Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00471/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00471-3/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

27

28

- 1 - 09cv0471

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHAD E. SINGLETON,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 09cv0471-LAB (CAB)

ORDER GRANTING

APPLICATION FOR

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

vs.

KEN CLARK, Warden, et al.,

Respondents.

Singleton filed a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on March 9, 2009.

Magistrate Judge Bencivengo issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on June 4,

2009 recommending that the petition be denied. The Court adopted the R&R on October

19, 2009. Now pending is Singleton’s Application for Certificate of Appealability (“COA”),

which a district or circuit judge must grant before he can appeal the denial of his habeas

petition to the Ninth Circuit. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). The Court has appointed counsel

to assist Singleton with his Application out of an abundance of caution, and this is the

second Application counsel has submitted. 

A. Legal Standard

A COA is authorized “if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial

of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “A petitioner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his

Case 3:09-cv-00471-LAB-CAB Document 33 Filed 07/12/10 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

- 2 - 09cv0471

constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to

deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003).

A petitioner doesn’t have to show that he should prevail on the merits. “He has already

failed in that endeavor.” Lambright v. Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022, 1025 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing

Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 (1983)). At the same time, the Court shouldn’t

issue a COA as a matter of course. A petitioner “must prove ‘something more than the

absence of frivolity’ or the existence of mere ‘good faith’ on his or her part.” Miller-El, 537

U.S. at 337–38 (citing Barefoot, 463 U.S. at 893).

B. Discussion

There is no dispute that Singleton’s petition was untimely. The question is whether

his blindness and paraplegia — of which the Court had no proof until Singleton filed his first

Application — entitle him to equitable tolling. The Court has already expressed some

skepticism about Singleton’s alleged infirmities. The offense for which he’s in custody is

reckless driving to evade an officer in 2003, and a probation report represents that Singleton

drove through his own front yard and then fled, successfully, on foot. It also represents that

as officers approached his house the following day, he jumped over a fence in his backyard

and initiated another chase. (See Lodgment 2, p. 10.) Those aren’t the moves of a blind

paraplegic who sustained a gunshot wound to the head in 1993. Singleton’s story, however,

is that he never fled on foot following the car pursuit, but that he “hobbled/limped with the aid

of his medically prescribed walking cane” and that officers did not pursue him. (Doc. No. 32,

p. 7.) While that’s consistent with having paraplegia, it’s just not very believable. 

The medical evidence Singleton has presented, however, is unimpeachable, at least

by the Court. It clearly states that a gunshot wound he sustained in 1993 left him blind and

paraplegic, and that his paraplegia has been exacerbated by spina bifida. (Doc. No. 23, Ex.

1; Lodgment 1, pp. 7–8.) Moreover, Singleton is demonstrably unable to write, requiring the

assistance of either fellow prisoners or a library assistant – although this is true of many

prisoners who aren’t disabled. (See Doc. No. 9.) If Singleton’s physical status is in fact what

//

Case 3:09-cv-00471-LAB-CAB Document 33 Filed 07/12/10 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

- 3 - 09cv0471

medical records indicate, perhaps there’s cause to question the account of his offense

contained in the probation report. 

The Court has already adopted the R&R on the finding that Singleton’s petition is

untimely and that he isn’t entitled to equitable tolling. Any evidence to the contrary wasn’t

received until after Singleton’s petition had been dismissed. Therefore, out of an abundance

of caution, the Court GRANTS Singleton’s request for a certificate of appealability. The

appellate court may determine whether, on the evidence that Gunn is disabled, he is entitled

to have his habeas petition adjudicated on the merits. Ms. Buchanan, as appointed counsel,

may continue to assist Singleton with his appeal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 12, 2010

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-00471-LAB-CAB Document 33 Filed 07/12/10 Page 3 of 3