Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02463/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02463-0/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

ALLAN TRACY GILMORE,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 11cv2463-MMA (DHB)

ORDER DENYING MOTION AND

DECLINING TO ISSUE

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

[Doc. No. 22]

vs.

TERRY GONZALEZ, Warden,

Respondent.

Petitioner Allan Tracy Gilmore, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to Title 28 of the United States Code, section 2254, challenging the

constitutionality of his conviction on one count of petty theft with a prior. On September 14,

2012, the Court dismissed the petition without prejudice as second or successive in light of the

proceedings recorded in Civil Case No. 07cv1823-DMS (JMA). See Doc. No. 19. Petitioner now

requests the Court to issue a certificate of appealability. See Doc. No. 22.

 Rule 11 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases states that “the district court

must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the

applicant.” A certificate of appealability (“COA”) is not issued unless there is “a substantial

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

here, dismissed on procedural grounds, a COA should be granted only if two elements are

satisfied: (1) “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of

the denial of a constitutional right”; and (2) “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the

- 1 - 11cv2463

Case 3:11-cv-02463-MMA-DHB Document 23 Filed 10/16/12 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

district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85

(2000). As each of these components is a “threshold inquiry,” the federal court “may find that it

can dispose of the application in a fair and prompt manner if it proceeds first to resolve the issue

whose answer is more apparent from the record and arguments.” Id. at 485. As the Court noted in

its order dismissing this action, a second or successive petition may not be filed in this Court

unless the petitioner first obtains from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit an

order authorizing this Court to consider the petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Petitioner

has not shown that jurists of reason would find anything debatable in the procedural ruling that the

petition is second or successive. Thus, the Court need not decide whether the application states a

valid constitutional claim. See Id. at 485.

 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion and DECLINES to issue a certificate

of appealability in this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 16, 2012

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

- 2 - 11cv2463

Case 3:11-cv-02463-MMA-DHB Document 23 Filed 10/16/12 Page 2 of 2