Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01127/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01127-0/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 - 08cv1127w

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARL SIMMONS,

Petitioner,

CASE NO: 08-CV-1127 W (POR)

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

v.

TERHUNE,

Respondent.

On January 28, 2009, Petitioner Carl Simmons (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner

proceeding pro se, filed a second amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254, and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). This Court

denied the IFP motionon February 17, 2009 for failure to demonstrate an inability to pay

the filing fee.

On March 16, 2009, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal. The Court of Appeals

construed this as a motion for a Certificate of Appealability (“COA”), and directed this

Court to decide the motion. For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES the motion

for a COA.

Case 3:08-cv-01127-W-POR Document 25 Filed 07/23/09 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 - 08cv1127w

I. DISCUSSION

Petitioner is a prisoner at Calipatria State Prison. On June 20, 2008, Petitioner filed

a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The original petition was

dismissed without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee or provide adequate proof of

Petitioner’s inability to pay. On August 6, 2008, Petitioner filed a First Amended Petition

as well as a motion for leave to proceed IFP. On January 9, 2009, this Court denied the

motion for leave to proceed IFP for failure to provide the court with sufficient information

to determine Petitioner’s financial status. 

On January 28, 2009, Petitioner filed a second amended complaint and IFP motion,

which included an “Inmate Statement Report.” The statement indicated a $35.78 balance

in Petitioner’s prison trust account. In light of this balance, on February 19, 2009, this

Court denied the IFP motion, finding that Petitioner was able to pay the $5.00 filing fee

per 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). Petitioner then filed a notice of appeal on March 16, 2009. The

Court of Appeals construed the appeal as a motion for a COA and ordered this Court to

decide the motion.

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-

132, 110 State. 1214 (1996) (“AEDPA”), a state prisoner may not appeal the denial of a

section 2254 habeas petition unless he obtains a COA from a district or circuit judge. 28

U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(1)(A); see also United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1269-70 (9th Cir.

1997) (holding that district courts retain authority to issue certificates of appealability under

the AEDPA).

In deciding whether to grant a COA, a court must either indicate the specific issues

supporting a certificate or state reasons why a certificate is not warranted. Asrar, 116 F.3d

at 1270. A court may issue a COA only if the applicant has made a “substantial showing”

of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This requirement means:

Where a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, the

showing required to satisfy section 2253 (c) is straightforward: The petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s

assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong ... When the

district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without

Case 3:08-cv-01127-W-POR Document 25 Filed 07/23/09 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 - 08cv1127w

reaching the petitioner’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 whether

the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

Here, the Court never denied the merits of Petitioner’s claims because the second

amended petition was dismissed without prejudice for failure to pay the $5 filing fee. And

because Petitioner’s prison trust account had a balance of $35.78, no reasonable jurist

would find it debatable whether this Court was correct in denying Petitioner’s IFP motion.

II. CONCLUSION & ORDER

For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion for a COA.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 23, 2009

Hon. Thomas J. Whelan

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01127-W-POR Document 25 Filed 07/23/09 Page 3 of 3