Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03718/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03718-3/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)

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 DENYING REQUEST FOR

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

(Docket no. 10)

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). 

"Determining whether a COA should issue where the petition was dismissed on procedural

grounds has two components, one directed at the underlying constitutional claims and one directed

at the district court's procedural holding." Id. at 484-85. "When the district court denies a habeas

petition on procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner's underlying constitutional claim, a

COA should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable

whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of

reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling." Id. at

484. 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. Supreme Court jurisprudence

"allows and encourages" federal courts to first resolve the procedural issue, as was done here. See

id.

Case 4:07-cv-03718-SBA Document 14 Filed 03/17/10 Page 1 of 5
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. 

2

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

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. 

Case 4:07-cv-03718-SBA Document 14 Filed 03/17/10 Page 2 of 5
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

3

In an Order dated February 11, 2010, the Court directed Respondent to file a response to

Petitioner's request for a COA. Specifically, Respondent was directed as follows: 

(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. 

(Feb. 11, 2010 Order at 2.)

On March 4, 2010, Respondent filed an opposition to Petitioner's request for a COA and

attached a copy of the January 18, 2006 state habeas petition. In the opposition, Respondent "denies

that Petitioner is entitled to either a COA or reconsideration of the Order dismissing his Petition." 

(Opp'n at 2.) Respondent argues that Petitioner "fails to demonstrate that jurists of reason would

find it debatable whether the procedural ruling was correct." (Id. at 3.) Respondent further argues

that "while it appears that Arroyo's superior court petition did indeed challenge his 2005 hearing,

rather than his 2003 hearing, he failed to challenge this error at any level in the state courts." (Id.

(citing Resp't Exs. 2, 3).) Respondent further points out that Petitioner "did not file a motion for

reconsideration in the superior court, . . . nor did he address the superior court's decision in the

California Court of Appeal or California Supreme Court. (Id. (citations omitted).) Because

Petitioner never presented his procedural claim squarely to the state courts, Respondent argues that

"any attempt to raise it at the federal level is improper." (Id. (citing House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518,

522 (2006) (It is well established that "federal habeas courts, as a general rule, are closed to claims

that state courts would consider defaulted.")).) 

In its March 18, 2009 Order Granting Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, this Court pointed

out that Petitioner's failure to address the superior court's alleged error in the state courts was "fatal

to Petitioner's case because it left him with no avenue in federal court to contest the state superior

court's alleged error in finding his second habeas petition successive." (Mar. 18, 2009 Order at 7.) 

The Court further noted that even if Petitioner could have supported his assertion that the state

superior court erred in barring his petition as successive, "the outcome would not change given that

Case 4:07-cv-03718-SBA Document 14 Filed 03/17/10 Page 3 of 5
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.denyCOA.wpd 4

federal court review of a petition deemed procedurally barred by a state court 'should be limited to

the language of the state court opinions' and not 'based on a post hoc examination of the pleadings

and record.'" (Mar. 18, 2009 Order at 7 n.2 (citing Bennett v. Mueller, 322 F.3d 573, 584 (2003).) 

Because the Court was limited to the language in the state superior court's opinion rejecting

Petitioner's January 18, 2006 state habeas petition as successive, jurists of reason would not have

found it debatable whether the Court was correct in finding that his federal petition was procedurally

barred.

In sum, the Court has reviewed its Order Granting Respondent's Motion to Dismiss. The

petition was dismissed because Petitioner's federal petition was procedurally barred. The Court

found that Respondent has 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. 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 unavailable to him. And, as mentioned above, while Petitioner again attempts to

argue in his COA request that the state superior court erred in its procedural ruling, he fails to

demonstrate that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether this Court's procedural ruling was

correct. Accordingly, the request for a COA is DENIED. 

The Clerk of the Court shall forward to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals the case file, the

Court's Order Granting Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, and this Order. See United States v. Asrar,

116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997).

This Order terminates Docket no. 10.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 3/16/10 _______________________________

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-03718-SBA Document 14 Filed 03/17/10 Page 4 of 5
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.denyCOA.wpd 5

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 March 17, 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: March 17, 2010

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:07-cv-03718-SBA Document 14 Filed 03/17/10 Page 5 of 5