Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-01200/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-01200-1/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)

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTONE LEE,

Petitioner,

 vs.

DERRAL G. ADAMS, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 08-1200 PJH (PR)

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS

FOR CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY AND FOR

LEAVE TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS

This is a habeas case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed pro se by a state prisoner. 

Petitioner has filed a notice of appeal, a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on

appeal, and a motion for a certificate of appealability (“COA”)

DISCUSSION 

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

without first obtaining a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App.

P. 22(b). Section 2253(c)(1) applies to an appeal of a final order entered on a procedural

question antecedent to the merits, for instance a dismissal on statute of limitations grounds,

as here. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483 (2000).

“Determining whether a COA should issue where the petition was dismissed on

procedural grounds has two components, one directed at the underlying constitutional

claims and one directed at the district court’s procedural holding.” Id. at 484-85. “When the

district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the

prisoner’s underlying constitutional claim, a COA should issue when the prisoner shows, at

least, 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

Case 4:08-cv-01200-PJH Document 35 Filed 03/02/10 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

whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Id. at 484. As each of these

components is a “threshold inquiry,” the federal court “may find that it can dispose of the

application in a fair and prompt manner if it proceeds first to resolve the issue whose

answer is more apparent from the record and arguments.” Id. at 485. Supreme Court

jurisprudence “allows and encourages” federal courts to first resolve the procedural issue,

as was done here. See id. 

For the reasons set out in the order denying the petition, the court concludes that

reasonable jurists would not find the court’s assessment of the constitutional claims

debatable or wrong. The request for a certificate of appealability (document number 29 on

the docket) is DENIED. Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal (document

31) is DENIED without prejudice to renewing it if the Court of Appeals grants a COA.

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

Appeals. See Fed. R.App.P. 22(b); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir.

1997). Petitioner may then ask the Court of Appeals to issue the certificate, see R.App.P.

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

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 2, 2010.

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

P:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.08\LEE1200.COA.wpd

Case 4:08-cv-01200-PJH Document 35 Filed 03/02/10 Page 2 of 2