Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01606/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01606-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS BOWEN,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 13-CV-1606 JLS (PCL)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY

(ECF No. 15)

vs.

DIRECTOR OF CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

On June 18, 2013, Petitioner Thomas Bowen (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for

writ of habeas corpus in the Central District of California. (ECF No. 1.) On July 10,

2013, Judge John A. Kronstadt dismissed Petitioner’s civil rights claims without

prejudice and transferred the action to the Southern District of California. (ECF No. 3.) 

On July 23, 2013, this Court issued its Order Dismissing Case Without Prejudice. 

(ECF No. 6.) The Court ordered dismissal without prejudice because Petitioner had

failed to (1) either pay the filing fee or move to proceed in forma pauperis, (2) allege

exhaustion of state judicial remedies, and (3) use a court-approved form pursuant to

Civil Local Rule HC.2(b). (See id. at 4.) The Court instructed Petitioner that, “[t]o

have this case reopened, no later than September 20, 2013, Petitioner must either pay

the filing fee or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis and file a First

Amended Petition, that cures the pleading deficiencies set forth above.” (Id.) 

- 1 - 13cv1606

Case 3:13-cv-01606-JLS-PCL Document 16 Filed 08/01/14 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

Rather than refiling his petition and either paying the filing fee or moving to

proceed in forma pauperis, on December 12, 2013, Petitioner appealed to the Ninth

Circuit. (ECF No. 10.) This Court is now obliged to determine whether a certificate

of appealability should issue in this matter. (ECF No. 15.)

A certificate of appealability is authorized “if the applicant has made a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When, as here,

a petition is dismissed on procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner's underlying

constitutional claim, 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)). Because both of these components are necessary to obtain a

certificate of appealability, the U.S. Supreme Court has encouraged district courts to

address the procedural prong first. See Slack, 529 U.S. at 485; see also Petrocelli v.

Angelone, 248 F.3d 877, 884 & n.6 (9th Cir.2001).

Here, jurists of reason would not find this Court’s procedural ruling debatable. 

Petitioner alleged neither exhaustion of state remedies nor either “an absence of

available State corrective process” or that such process would be ineffective. 

Accordingly, under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1), this Court cannot consider the merits of

Petitioner’s habeas petition, and this Court had discretion to dismiss Petitioner’s

petition without prejudice. See Franklin v. Johnson, 290 F.3d 1223, 1231 (9th Cir.

2002) (citing Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518 (1982)) (“If a petitioner’s claims are

unexhausted, the district court can dismiss the petition without prejudice to give the

prisoner a chance to return to state court to litigate his unexhausted claims before he can

have the federal court consider his claims.”); see also Johnson v. Lewis, 929 F.2d 460,

463 (9th Cir. 1991) (citation omitted). 

Moreover, it is unquestionable that Petitioner has neither paid the requisite filing

fee nor moved to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court was entitled to dismiss

- 2 - 13cv1606

Case 3:13-cv-01606-JLS-PCL Document 16 Filed 08/01/14 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

Petitioner’s petition without prejudice for this failing. See Young v. United States, 465

F. App’x 597, 598 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted) (finding that “[t]he district court

did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action because [the petitioner] failed to

pay the filing fee”). 

In light of the foregoing, no reasonable jurist would find the Court’s Order

Dismissing Case Without Prejudice to be debatable. Accordingly, the Court DENIES

a certificate of appealability. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 1, 2014

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

- 3 - 13cv1606

Case 3:13-cv-01606-JLS-PCL Document 16 Filed 08/01/14 Page 3 of 3