Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00702/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00702-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES E. TRUSCHKE, JR.,

Petitioner,

v.

SHASTA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, 

et al.,

Respondents.

No. 2:15-cv-0702 CKD P

ORDER

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has appealed the June 24, 2015 dismissal of 

his petition for untimeliness. As the order of dismissal did not address whether a certificate of 

appealability should issue, the court does so here.1

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). 

Where 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 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 

 

1

Petitioner has consented to this court’s jurisdiction to conduct all proceedings in this action. 

(ECF No. 6.)

Case 2:15-cv-00702-CKD Document 23 Filed 08/10/15 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

27

28

2

v. Woodford, 229 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000)).

After review of the record herein, this court finds that petitioner has not satisfied the 

requirement for issuance of a certificate of appealability in this case. Accordingly, a certificate of 

appealability will not issue in this action.

After the judgment of dismissal was entered on June 24, 2015, petitioner filed two 

motions. (ECF No. 16 & 18.) As this case is closed, the Clerk of Court will be directed to 

disregard these motions, and no orders will issue in response to future filings. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253; 

and

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to disregard petitioner’s motions at ECF Nos. 16 & 18, 

as this action was closed on June 24, 2015. 

Dated: August 10, 2015

2 / cudg0691.coa.pro

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-00702-CKD Document 23 Filed 08/10/15 Page 2 of 2