Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_99-cv-01405/USCOURTS-caed-2_99-cv-01405-13/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD B. BUTLER,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-99-1405 LKK KJM P 

vs.

G.A. MUELLER, Warden, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner has timely filed a notice of appeal of this court's May 11, 2007

dismissal of his application for a writ of habeas corpus for violation of the applicable statute of

limitations. Before petitioner can appeal this decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).

A certificate of appealability may issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the

applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without

reaching the prisoner's underlying constitutional claim, a certificate of appealability should issue

when the prisoner shows 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 

/////

Case 2:99-cv-01405-LKK -KJM Document 181 Filed 06/20/07 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

2

debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling. Slack v. McDaniel, 529

U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). 

For the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s March 15, 2007 findings and

recommendations, and this court’s May 11, 2007 order, jurists of reason would not find it

debatable whether petitioner’s application was properly dismissed. Accordingly, a certificate of

appealability should not issue in this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 20, 2007.

Case 2:99-cv-01405-LKK -KJM Document 181 Filed 06/20/07 Page 2 of 2