Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-07908/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-07908-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PERCY JAMES PEARCE,

Petitioner,

 vs.

UNITED STATES PAROLE

COMMISSION, et al., 

Respondents. /

No. C 06-7908 PJH (PR)

ORDER DENYING

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY 

The petition in this case was dismissed with leave to amend because petitioner did

not say when the probation proceeding he appeared to be trying to attack occurred, nor

where, nor did he provide any clear explanation of the legal basis for his claims. The court

also noted that a petition such as this would not be a proper means of attacking the

underlying conviction, see United States v. Lustig, 555 F.2d 751, 753 (9th Cir. 1977), and

that because it appeared that petitioner might have been released after completing the

revocation period, the petition might be moot. When petitioner did not amend, the petition

was dismissed. 

 Petitioner has filed a notice of appeal. The petitioner in a federal habeas corpus

proceeding may not appeal without first obtaining a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. §

2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Petitioner has not requested a certificate of appealability

(“COA”), but the notice of appeal will be construed as such a request. See United States v.

Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997) (if no express request is made for a COA, the

notice of appeal shall be deemed to constitute a request for a certificate). 

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

procedural grounds has two components, one directed at the underlying constitutional

Case 4:06-cv-07908-PJH Document 9 Filed 02/15/08 Page 1 of 2
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

2

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. 

The dismissal in this case was because petitioner did not “state facts that point to a

‘real possibility of constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v.

Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970). “Habeas petitions which appear on their face to

be legally insufficient are subject to summary dismissal.” Calderon v. United States Dist.

Court (Nicolaus), 98 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 1996) (Schroeder, J., concurring). Given the

lack of information in the petition and petitioner’s failure to amend, reasonable jurists would

not find the court’s assessment debatable or wrong. The request for a certificate of

appealability implied from the notice of appeal is DENIED.

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

Appeals. See Fed. R.App.P. 22(b); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir.

1997). Petitioner may then ask the Court of Appeals to issue the certificate, see R.App.P.

22(b)(1), or if he does not, the notice of appeal will be construed as such a request, see

R.App.P. 22(b)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 15, 2008. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.06\pearce7908.COA.wpd 

Case 4:06-cv-07908-PJH Document 9 Filed 02/15/08 Page 2 of 2