Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03718/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03718-2/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 A copy of Petitioner' s second state habeas petition filed on January 18, 2006 was not originally

submitted as an exhibit when the Court resolved Respondent's motion to dismiss. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARTEMIO ARROYO,

Petitioner,

 v.

BEN CURRY,

Respondent. /

No. C 07-03718 SBA (PR)

ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO

FILE A RESPONSE TO PETITIONER'S

REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to title 28

U.S.C. § 2254. The Court granted Respondent's motion to dismiss the petition. Petitioner has filed a

notice of appeal and a request for a certificate of appealability (COA). 

A petitioner may not appeal a final order in a federal habeas corpus proceeding without first

obtaining a COA. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Section 2253(c)(1) applies to an

appeal of a final order entered on a procedural question antecedent to the merits. See Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483 (2000). 

In its March 18, 2009 Order Granting Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, the Court dismissed

the petition because Petitioner's federal petition was procedurally barred. The Court found that

Respondent had satisfactorily established that California's procedural bar against successive

petitions as applied in practice was an adequate state ground for rejecting Petitioner's January 18,

2006 state habeas petition, which allegedly challenged his 2003 parole denial.1

 The Court further

determined that this bar should be imposed against Petitioner because he failed to demonstrate that

an exception to the procedural default rule was available to him. 

In his request for a COA, Petitioner claims this Court "erroneously granted Respondent's

motion to dismiss." (Req. for COA at 2.) Petitioner states: "The United States District Court

Case 4:07-cv-03718-SBA Document 12 Filed 02/11/10 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

erroneously found that petitioner's second habeas petition was deemed successive because the

Superior Court found that he challenged the same 2003 parole denial as in his first habeas petition." 

(Id. at 4.) He adds that "[a]t no time neither on his state court petitions nor at his federal petition

[did] petitioner attached [sic] a copy of his 2003 parole consideration hearing transcript. Then how

could petitioner be challenging the 2003 parole denial?" (Id. at 3.) 

Furthermore, Petitioner takes issue with the following statement in the Court's March 18,

2009 Order: "The Court notes that nowhere in his federal petition nor in the attached exhibits did

Petitioner claim that his second habeas petition challenged the 2005 parole denial." (Id. at 3

(quoting Mar. 18, 2009 Order at 2).) He claims that "[i]n his petitions to the California Court of

Appeals and to the California Supreme Court petitioner clearly state[s] that the last parole

consideration hearing was held on July 12, 2005 [and] [t]hat a copy of the Parole Suitability Hearing

Transcript [from the 2005 hearing] was [attached] at Exhibit 'H'." (Id. at 3.)

Petitioner seems to be arguing that he attempted to exhaust his claim challenging the 2005

parole denial; however, the state superior court erred in its procedural ruling finding that his second

state habeas petition was successive. Therefore, Petitioner claims that this Court erred in granting

Respondent's motion to dismiss his federal petition as procedurally barred. 

Based on Petitioner's factual arguments that this Court has erred in its March 18, 2009

dismissed of his petition, the Court directs Respondent to respond to Petitioner's arguments before it

can resolve the pending request for a COA.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court directs Respondent no later than twenty (20) days from

the date of this Order: (1) to respond to Petitioner's arguments in his request for a COA; (2) to show

cause why the Court should not construe Petitioner's request for a COA as a motion for

reconsideration of the Court's March 18, 2009 Order Granting Respondent's Motion to Dismiss; and

(3) to attach a copy of Petitioner's second habeas petition filed in the San Joaquin County Superior

Court on January 18, 2006. This matter will be submitted once Respondent files his response. At

that time, the Court will resolve the pending request for a COA in a separate written Order.

Case 4:07-cv-03718-SBA Document 12 Filed 02/11/10 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 P:\PRO-SE\SBA\HC.07\Arroyo3718.fileRESPONSE.wpd 3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 2/8/10 _______________________________

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-03718-SBA Document 12 Filed 02/11/10 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 P:\PRO-SE\SBA\HC.07\Arroyo3718.fileRESPONSE.wpd 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARTEMIO ARROYO,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BEN CURRY et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV07-03718 SBA 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on February 11, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said

envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle

located in the Clerk's office.

Artemio M. Arroyo C 20149

Correctional Training Facility (Soledad)

BW-221

P.O. Box 689

Soledad, CA 93960

Dated: February 11, 2010

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:07-cv-03718-SBA Document 12 Filed 02/11/10 Page 4 of 4