Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00715/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00715-3/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- 14cv715-MMA (JLB)

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 

DWAYNE STANLEY IVEY, II,

Petitioner,

v. 

DANIEL PARAMO, Warden, 

Respondent.

Case No.: 14cv715-MMA (JLB)

ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE 

CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY 

 Petitioner Dwayne Stanley Ivey, II (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro 

se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging 

his state court conviction. Doc. No. 1. On December 16, 2016, the Court denied the 

petition for writ of habeas corpus. Doc. No. 22. On August 17, 2018, Petitioner filed a 

Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Doc. No. 

27. The Court construed Petitioner’s motion as a second or successive § 2254 petition, 

and because Petitioner has not obtained permission from the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals to file a second or successive petition, the Court concluded it lacked jurisdiction 

to hear Petitioner’s claims. Doc. No. 28. Petitioner appealed. Doc. No. 30. 

 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). 

Case 3:14-cv-00715-MMA-JLB Document 33 Filed 10/02/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
 -2- 14cv715-MMA (JLB)

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

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 district court was correct in its procedural 

ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). 

 As the Court noted in its previous Order, 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 demonstrated that jurists of reason would 

find it debatable whether the Court was correct in its procedural ruling that the petition is 

second or successive.1

 See United States v. Lynch, 634 F. App’x 611, 612 (9th Cir. 2016) 

(“The district court held that Lynch’s purported Rule 60(b) motion is actually an 

unauthorized, second or successive habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. For us to 

entertain his appeal, Lynch needs a Certificate of Appealability[.]”); see also Davis v. 

Long, No. 14-cv-560-GPC-JLB, 2018 WL 1382756, at *3 (S.D. Cal. March 16, 2018) 

(declining to issue a COA where the district court construed the petitioner’s Rule 60(b) 

motion as a second or successive § 2254 petition). 

 Accordingly, the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability in this 

case. The Clerk of Court is directed to notify the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of this 

Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 2, 2018

 _____________________________ 

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 

United States District Judge 

                                               

1

 As such, the Court need not decide whether the application states a valid constitutional claim. 

See Slack, 529 U.S. at 485. 

Case 3:14-cv-00715-MMA-JLB Document 33 Filed 10/02/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2