Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01051/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01051-3/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)

---

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

05cv1051

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEPHEN FLOYD ULLRICH,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY

GENERAL et al.,

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 05cv1051-L (POR)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Petition”). By order filed July 9, 2007, the court dismissed the

petition as barred by the statute of limitations. Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration of

Dismissal was denied. On January 15, 2008, Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal. Pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c), a certificate of appealability (“COA”) is DENIED.

Title 28 U.S.C. § 2253 governs the appealability of habeas corpus petitions. It provides

in pertinent part:

(c)(1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an

appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from--

(A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention

complained of arises out of process issued by a State court; . . . 

/ / / / /

Case 3:05-cv-01051-L-POR Document 43 Filed 01/23/08 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

2 05cv1051

Although Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal, he has not filed a request for a certificate of

appealability. Nevertheless, “[i]f an applicant files a notice of appeal, the district judge who

rendered the judgment must either issue a certificate of appealability or state why a certificate

should not issue.” Fed. R. App. Proc. 22(b)(1). 

“A certificate of appealability should issue only if the petitioner has made a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Where, as here, the

district court dismisses the petition on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability should

issue only if the petitioner can show: (1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether

the district court was correct in its procedural ruling;’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it

debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right.’” Rosas

v. Nielsen, 428 F.3d 1229, 1233 (9th Cir. 2005), quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000).

Petitioner challenges his state court petty theft conviction, which became final on June 9,

1997. The Petition was filed almost eight years later, on May 12, 2005. The Petition was

dismissed as untimely under the one-year statute of limitations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). 

After giving Petitioner an opportunity to brief statutory and equitable tolling, the court

concluded Petitioner failed to show the statute of limitations was tolled for a sufficient period of

time to render his Petition timely. The court finds that jurists of reason would not find it

debatable whether the Petition was untimely.

For the foregoing reasons, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 22, 2008

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. LOUISA S. PORTER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:05-cv-01051-L-POR Document 43 Filed 01/23/08 Page 2 of 2