Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-01336/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-01336-2/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

Case No.: 5:14-cv-01336-EJD

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ANDRES NAVARRO,

Petitioner,

v.

R.T.C. GROUNDS, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 5:14-cv-01336-EJD 

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY

In an order filed on August 28, 2015, this court found that Petitioner Andres Navarro’s

(“Petitioner”) petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 was untimely and 

that he was not entitled equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. The court granted 

Respondent’s motion to dismiss on those grounds and entered judgment, from which Petitioner

appealed. On November 3, 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the action for the 

limited purpose of granting or denying a certificate of appealability (“COA”). 

When, as here, “the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without 

reaching the prisoner’s underlying constitutional claim, a COA should issue (and an appeal of the 

district court’s order may be taken) if 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, 478 (2000). Having reviewed the record, the court 

finds that “jurists or reason” could not find debatable either the application of the statute of 

limitations or the rejection of equitable tolling. As discussed in the order, Petitioner admitted that

his petition was not timely filed, and he did not present circumstances sufficient to justify a tolling 

Case 5:14-cv-01336-EJD Document 28 Filed 11/05/15 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No.: 5:14-cv-01336-EJD

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

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

Northern District of California

of the limitations period. 

Accordingly, the court DENIES a certificate of appealability. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 5, 2015

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-01336-EJD Document 28 Filed 11/05/15 Page 2 of 2