Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00372/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00372-1/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

1 11cv0372RBB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EVERETTE BUFF,

Petitioner,

v.

L. MCEWAN, WARDEN, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 11-cv-0372 RBB

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

On August 12, 2011, this Court issued an Order Granting

Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

[ECF No. 11]. The Court found that the claims Buff asserts in

Buff’s Petition are barred by AEDPA’s one-year statute of

limitations, and that the Petitioner is not entitled to statutory

or equitable tolling. (Order Granting Resp’t’s Mot. Dismiss 17,

ECF No. 11.) 

When a habeas corpus petitioner seeks to appeal a district

court’s order dismissing the petitioner, the certificate of

appealability requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) govern

the appeal. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 551 (2000). A

certificate of appealability should only be issued if the applicant

presents “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

Case 3:11-cv-00372-RBB Document 13 Filed 08/17/11 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

27

28

K:\COMMON\BROOKS\CASES\HABEAS\BUFF0372\Order re Appealability.wpd 2 11cv0372RBB

right.” 28 U.S.C.A. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). To meet this threshold

showing, the petitioner must show that (1) the issues are debatable

among jurists of reason, (2) a court could resolve the issues in a

different way, or (3) the questions are adequate to deserve

encouragement to proceed. Lambright v. Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022,

1024-25 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880,

893 (1983)); see Slack, 529 U.S. at 483-84.

Here, the issues in Buff’s Petition are not debatable among

reasonable jurists and could not be resolved in a different manner. 

See Lambright, 220 F.3d at 1024-25. In light of the Petition’s

untimeliness, the questions do not deserve encouragement to proceed

further. See id. Buff has not met the threshold showing of the

denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2253(c)(2). 

Consequently, the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability.

Dated: August 17, 2011 

RUBEN B. BROOKS

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: All parties of record

Case 3:11-cv-00372-RBB Document 13 Filed 08/17/11 Page 2 of 2