Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-05035/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-05035-2/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

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY T. HARRELL, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

S. W. ORNOSKI, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-5035 JSW (PR)

ORDER DENYING

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

(Docket nos. 17, 18, 19)

Petitioner Gary T. Harrell filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus

challenging the constitutionality of his confinement under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Following

briefing, this Court dismissed Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus as

untimely and for failing to state a claim for federal habeas relief in an order dated March

12, 2007 (docket no. 12). Petitioner has filed a notice of appeal and a request for a

certificate of appealability (docket nos. 17, 19) and a motion for a decision on his request

(docket no. 18). 

Upon the filing of a notice of appeal and a request for a COA, the district court

shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the standard for issuing a certificate,

or state its reasons why a certificate should not be granted. See United States v. Asrar,

116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997). (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3)). A judge shall

grant 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). 

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

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

Case 3:05-cv-05035-JSW Document 20 Filed 12/03/07 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

claims and one directed at the district court’s procedural holding.” Slack v. McDaniel,

529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). “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 whether the district court was correct in

its procedural ruling.” Id. at 484; see James v. Giles, 221 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir.

2000). 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.” Slack,

529 U.S. at 485. Supreme Court jurisprudence “allows and encourages” federal courts to

first resolve the procedural issue. See id. With regard to the issues before the Court,

Petitioner has not shown “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the

district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Id. at 484. Accordingly, the request

for a certificate of appealability is DENIED and the Clerk shall terminate all pending

motions as decided by this order (docket nos. 17-19). 

The Clerk of Court shall forward this order, along with the case file, to the United

States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Petitioner may also seek a certificate of

appealability from that court. See Asrar, 116 F.3d at 1270. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 3, 2007

 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05035-JSW Document 20 Filed 12/03/07 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HARRELL,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ORNOSKI et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV05-05035 JSW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on December 3, 2007, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office

delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Gary T. Harrell

California State Prison

San Quentin

B99531

San Quentin, CA 94974

Scott Colin Mather

CA State Attorney General’s Office

455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102-7004

Dated: December 3, 2007

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:05-cv-05035-JSW Document 20 Filed 12/03/07 Page 3 of 3