Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01511/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01511-5/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

 Petitioner has filed a request for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. 1

However, petitioner’s notice of appeal was filed within thirty days of the denial of petitioner’s

motion to vacate, which the court construes as a motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule

59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Therefore, petitioner’s notice of appeal is timely and

his request for an extension of time is unnecessary. See Fed R. App. P 4(a).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD PAUL CHAPMAN,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-1511 LKK KJM P

vs.

JIM TILTON,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has timely filed a notice of appeal1

of this court's dismissal of his application for a writ of habeas corpus. 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

Case 2:05-cv-01511-LKK -KJM Document 37 Filed 03/08/07 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

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

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

U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). The certificate of appealability must “indicate which specific issue or

issues satisfy” the above requirements. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3).

For the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s May 22, 2006 findings and

recommendations, and this court’s September 29, 2006 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: March 7, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-01511-LKK -KJM Document 37 Filed 03/08/07 Page 2 of 2