Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02479/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02479-4/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 – 13cv2479 

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 

MARQUISE GRADY, 

 Petitioner, 

Case No. 13-cv-2479-BAS(MDD) 

ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE 

PETITIONER A CERTIFICATE 

OF APPEALABILITY 

[ECF No. 64] 

 v. 

M.D. BITER, 

 Respondent. 

On February 10, 2016, the Court overruled Petitioner Marquise Grady’s 

objections, approved and adopted in its entirety the magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation, and denied Mr. Grady’s petition for writ of habeas corpus brought 

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 51.) Mr. Grady suggested that he wished to pursue 

an appeal, but he did not receive the Court’s February 10, 2016 Order within the time 

period necessary to file a timely notice of appeal. (ECF No. 54.) Because the Court 

lacked the authority to extend Mr. Grady’s appeal deadline, it invited Mr. Grady to 

file a motion for reconsideration instead. (ECF No. 55.) The Court denied Mr. 

Grady’s motion for reconsideration on the grounds that the arguments presented were 

not properly before the Court under either Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b). (ECF No. 61.) 

// 

Case 3:13-cv-02479-BAS-MDD Document 65 Filed 08/08/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
 – 2 – 13cv2479 

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 

A certificate of appealability may issue only if the applicant makes a 

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

petitioner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree 

with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could 

conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed 

further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003); see also Slack v. McDaniel, 

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Mr. Grady failed to meet that standard. Because reasonable 

jurists would not find the Court’s assessment of Mr. Grady’s arguments debatable or 

wrong, the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability for the Court’s 

April 10, 2017 Order (ECF No. 61). See Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 8, 2017 

 

Case 3:13-cv-02479-BAS-MDD Document 65 Filed 08/08/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2