Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00899/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00899-1/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

Order Granting Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time; Denying Certificate of Appealability 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.05\Huynh899extapp

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN NGOC HUYNH

Petitioner,

 vs.

DAVID L. RUNNELS, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-0899 JF (PR)

ORDER GRANTING

PETITIONER’S MOTION

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME;

DENYING MOTION FOR

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY 

(Docket Nos. 17, 18)

On June 14, 2006, the Court denied this pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus

on the merits and entered judgment in favor of Respondent. On July 15, 2006, Petitioner

signed and dated his request for an extension of time to file a certificate of appealability,

which was filed with the Court on July 24, 2006. Petitioner then filed a motion for a

certificate of appealability on July 28, 2006. The Court will GRANT Petitioner’s motion

for an extension of time (docket no. 17) and DENY the motion for a certificate of

appealability (docket no. 18).

\\\

\\\

\\\

**Original filed 8/31/06**

Case 5:05-cv-00899-JF Document 19 Filed 08/31/06 Page 1 of 4
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

Order Granting Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time; Denying Certificate of Appealability 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.05\Huynh899extapp

DISCUSSION

A. Motion for Extension of Time

Petitioner filed a request for an extension of time to file a motion for a certificate

of appealability. In his motion, petitioner explains that he did not receive a copy of the

Court’s order denying the instant petition and judgment until June 26, 2006 because he

was recently transferred to a new prison facility. Petitioner also states that he has not had

access to the law library due to a prison lockdown and requests an additional thirty days

to file his motion for a certificate for appealability. See Pet.’s Mot. at 1-2. 

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) allows a motion for an extension of

time if the party requests it within thirty days of the expiration of the time to file the

notice and shows excusable neglect or good cause. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5). The

extension must be no later than thirty days after the original deadline, or ten days after the

entry of the order granting the motion, whichever is later. See id. The Court concludes

that Petitioner has shown good cause for such extension. Accordingly, Petitioner’s

motion for an extension of time to file a motion for a certificate of appealability (docket

no. 17) is GRANTED. 

B. Motion for Certificate of Appealability

Petitioner filed a motion for a certificate of appealability on July 28, 2006. The

Court construes Petitioner’s motion as a notice of appeal and a request for a certificate of

appealability. 

 A petitioner may not appeal a final order in a federal habeas corpus proceeding

without first obtaining a certificate of appealability (formerly known as a certificate of

probable cause to appeal). See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A judge shall

grant a certificate of appealability “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing

of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The certificate must

indicate which issues satisfy this standard. See id. § 2253(c)(3). 

“Where a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, the

showing required to satisfy § 2253(c) is straightforward: the petitioner must demonstrate

Case 5:05-cv-00899-JF Document 19 Filed 08/31/06 Page 2 of 4
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

Order Granting Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time; Denying Certificate of Appealability 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.05\Huynh899extapp

that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional

claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1604 (2000). 

Except for substituting the word “constitutional” for the word “federal,” section

2253(c)(2) codified the standard announced by the United States Supreme Court in

Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 892-93 (1983). See Slack, 120 S. Ct. at 1603. In

Barefoot, the Court explained that “a substantial showing of the denial of [a] federal

right” means that a petitioner “must demonstrate that the issues are debatable among

jurists of reason; that a court could resolve the issues [in a different manner], or that the

questions are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” 463 U.S. at 893 n.4

(citations and internal quotations omitted; emphasis in original). Any doubts about

whether the Barefoot standard has been met must be resolved in petitioner’s favor. 

Lambright v. Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022, 1024-25 (9th Cir. 2000).

The Court denied the instant habeas petition after careful consideration of the

merits. The Court found no violation of Petitioner’s federal constitutional rights in the

underlying state court proceedings. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that jurists of

reason would find it debatable whether this Court was correct in its ruling. Petitioner’s

motion for a certificate of appealability (docket no. 18) is DENIED.

The Clerk shall transmit the file, including a copy of this order, to the Court of

Appeals. Petitioner may then ask the Court of Appeals to issue the certificate. See Fed.

R. App. P. 22(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _______________ _____________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

8/31/06 /S/

Case 5:05-cv-00899-JF Document 19 Filed 08/31/06 Page 3 of 4
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

Order Granting Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.05\Huynh899extapp 4

A copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

John Ngoc Huynh

T-59834/ RB-348

CTF - Soledad (North)

P.O. Box 705

Soledad, CA 93960

Aileen Bunney

California State Attorney General’s Office

455 Golden Gate Avenue

Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102-7004

 

Case 5:05-cv-00899-JF Document 19 Filed 08/31/06 Page 4 of 4