Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01819/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01819-3/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

 See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

2

 The Court notes that in the Order finding the claim in this case barred by the statute

of limitations, the Court gave Petitioner the benefit of not starting the statute of limitations until

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

)

Danny Claude Cotton, ) CASE NO. CV 06-1819-PHX-JAT 

Petitioner/Appellant, )

) ORDER

vs. )

) ON CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

United States of America, ) AND IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS

)

Respondents/Appellees, )

Having examined the application of Danny Claude Cotton for issuance of a

Certificate of Appealability from the order denying his Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus,

the Court FINDS:

/X/ Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are

Granted. 

/_/ Petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right

with respect to the following issue(s): 

.

/X/ Petitioner has made an underlying claim that jurists of reason would find

debatable and jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was

correct in the following procedural rulings1

:

1) is a stand alone claim of actual innocence available in a non-capital case? If question

1 is answered in the affirmative, 

2) does a stand alone claim of actual innocence allow a petitioner to circumvent the

AEDPA’s 1-year statute of limitations, when after considering statutory and equitable tolling,

the petition claiming actual innocence is barred by the statute of limitations? If question 2 is

also answered in the affirmative, 

3) does Petitioner’s actual innocence claim in this case meet the extraordinarily high

standard required under Carriger v. Stewart, 132 F.3d 463, 476-77 (9th Cir. 1997) (en

banc)?2

Case 2:06-cv-01819-JAT Document 31 Filed 09/11/08 Page 1 of 2
after the conclusion of Petitioner’s first post-conviction relief petition by applying Summers v.

Schriro, 481 F.3d 710 (9th Cir 2007). On further review, the Court notes that Petitioner did not

plead guilty and, therefore, should not have received the benefit of Summers. However, the

Court’s ultimate conclusion, that the Petition is barred by the statute of limitations, is not

impacted by the fact that the Court did not count some time against Petitioner’s statute of

limitations that should have been counted. See Doc. #27 at 2-3.

/ / Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are

Denied.

/_/ Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.

/_/ The dismissal was justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would

not find the procedural ruling debatable.

The Clerk of Court shall forthwith notify the parties of the entry of this Order

regarding Certificate of Appealability and In Forma Pauperis Status on Appeal.

DATED this 10th day of September, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-01819-JAT Document 31 Filed 09/11/08 Page 2 of 2