Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00994/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00994-3/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

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

DAVID GLENN MOLLISON,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-08-0994 JAM EFB P

vs.

MATTHEW MARTEL, et al., ORDER

Respondents. 

 /

Petitioner has timely filed a notice of appeal of this court’s dismissal of his

application for a writ of habeas corpus as untimely. 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). The court must either issue a certificate of appealability indicating which issues

satisfy the required showing or must state the reasons why such a certificate should not issue. 

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

Where, as here, the petition was dismissed on procedural grounds, a certificate of

appealability “should issue if the prisoner can show: (1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it

debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling’; and (2) ‘that jurists of

Case 2:08-cv-00994-JAM-EFB Document 25 Filed 03/15/10 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

reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a

constitutional right.’” Morris v. Woodford, 229 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

After careful review of the entire record herein, this court finds that petitioner has

not satisfied the first requirement for issuance of a certificate of appealability in this case.

Specifically, there is no showing that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether

petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus was untimely. Accordingly, a certificate of

appealability should not issue in this action.

Accordingly it is hereby ORDERED that petitioner’s request for a certificate of

appealability is denied. 

DATED: March 15, 2010

/s/ John A. Mendez 

U. S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 2:08-cv-00994-JAM-EFB Document 25 Filed 03/15/10 Page 2 of 2