Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00956/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00956-3/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

D. DUSTIN, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-08-956 GEB KJM P

vs.

SUBIA, Warden, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prison inmate who timely filed a notice of appeal from this

court’s determination that he had failed to exhaust state remedies before proceeding to federal

court to challenge the results of a prison disciplinary proceeding. On October 31, 2008, this

court issued an order determining that no certificate of appealablity was necessary for petitioner

to pursue his appeal. See White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2004) and Rosas v.

Nielsen, 428 F.3d 1229, 1231-32 (9th Cir. 2005) (per curiam),

On April 22, 2010, the Court of Appeals overruled portions of these two cases

and ruled that a certificate of appealability is required to appeal the denial of a habeas petition

which challenges an administrative decision. Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 554-55 (9th

Cir. 2010) (en banc).

/////

Case 2:08-cv-00956-GEB -KJM Document 17 Filed 08/09/10 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

On August 4, 2010, the Court of Appeals remanded this case for the limited

purpose of granting or denying a certificate of appealability. 

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

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

has exhausted state remedies. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability should not issue in this

action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 6, 2010

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:08-cv-00956-GEB -KJM Document 17 Filed 08/09/10 Page 2 of 2