Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00496/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00496-9/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

O’SHAY JOHNSON, No. 2:08-cv-00496-MCE-KJM P

Petitioner, 

vs. ORDER

D.K. SISTO,

Respondent. 

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has timely filed a notice of appeal of this

court's April 29, 2010 dismissal of his application for a writ of habeas corpus for untimeliness. 

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

court must either issue a certificate of appealability indicating which issues satisfy the required

showing or must state the reasons why such a certificate should not issue. Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).

///

///

Case 2:08-cv-00496-MCE-CKD Document 46 Filed 06/09/10 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

2

Where, as here, 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 v. Woodford, 229 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Slack v.

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

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

satisfied the first requirement for issuance of a certificate of appealability in this case.

Specifically, there is no showing that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the

petition was timely. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability should not issue in this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 8, 2010

________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:08-cv-00496-MCE-CKD Document 46 Filed 06/09/10 Page 2 of 2