Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02650/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02650-4/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

PETER GOODRIDGE, 

Petitioner, No. 2: 07-cv-2650 LKK KJN P

vs.

RICHARD SUBIAS, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brought a petition for writ of habeas corpus

challenging the California Board of Parole Hearings’ decision that petitioner was unsuitable for

parole. On June 20, 2010, this court dismissed the petition as barred by the statute of limitations

imposed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). 

Petitioner has filed a timely appeal of his application for a writ of habeas corpus. Before

petitioner can appeal this decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c);

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

certificate of appealability must "indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy" the requirement. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3).

Case 2:07-cv-02650-LKK -KJN Document 36 Filed 07/13/10 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

2

The Supreme Court has adopted:

a two-step analysis for deciding whether to grant a COA when a

district court "denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds

without reaching the prisoner's underlying constitutional claim."

[Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).] In those

circumstances, 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." [Id.]

Morris v. Woodford, 229 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir. 2000).

In the context of a federal habeas corpus motion brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the

Supreme Court has indicated that the statute of limitations is procedural. Daniels v. United

States, 532 U.S. 374, 381 (2001) (“Procedural barriers, such as statutes of limitations and rules

concerning procedural default and exhaustion of remedies, operate to limit access to review on

the merits of a constitutional claim.”), but see Ellingson v. Burlington Northern, Inc., 653 F.2d

1327, 1331 n.3 (9th Cir. 1981), superceded on other grounds as stated in PAE Gov't Servs. v.

MPRI, Inc., 514 F.3d 856, 859 n.3 (9th Cir. 2007) (“A judgment based on the statute of

limitations is ‘on the merits’” for purposes of res judicata). Accordingly, it appears that this

court must analyze both whether jurists of reason could disagree with this court’s ruling on the

statute of limitations question and the underlying merits of the petition.

On the first issue, the court concludes that jurists of reason could disagree. On the

second, the court is “simply [to] take a quick look at the face of the [petition] to determine

whether the petitioner has facially alleged the denial of a constitutional right.” Morris, 229 F.3d

at 781 (quoting Lambright v. Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022, 1026 (9th Cir. 2000)). Reviewing the

petition at issue under this standard, petitioner has facially alleged that the Board of Parole

Hearings violated his rights under the Due Process Clause by finding him unsuitable for parole in

2005 without “some evidence” to support this finding. See Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546,

562-63 (9th Cir. 2010)

Case 2:07-cv-02650-LKK -KJN Document 36 Filed 07/13/10 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

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a certificate of appealability issue as to the

above issues.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 13, 2010.

Case 2:07-cv-02650-LKK -KJN Document 36 Filed 07/13/10 Page 3 of 3