Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01276/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01276-3/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN MONTALVO,

Petitioner,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

No. 2:13-cv-1276 MCE GGH P

ORDER

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a “petition for issuance of 

certificate of appealability” which this court also construes as notice of appeal of this court's 

March 4, 2014 dismissal of his application for a writ of habeas corpus as successive.

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 certificate of appealability must “indicate which specific 

issue or issues satisfy” the requirement. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3).

A certificate of appealability should be granted for any issue that petitioner can 

demonstrate is “‘debatable among jurists of reason,’” could be resolved differently by a different

court, or is “‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Jennings v. Woodford, 290 

Case 2:13-cv-01276-MCE-GGH Document 31 Filed 04/22/14 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

27

28

2

F.3d 1006, 1010 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)).1

Petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right in the 

following issue(s) presented by the instant petition. The underlying, initial petition in this case, 

08-cv-1224, was dismissed on statute of limitations grounds. At the time of ruling in the petition 

under review here, the undersigned was bound to apply McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028 (9th 

Cir. 2009) (dismissal of habeas petition for failure to comply with statute of limitations renders 

subsequent petitions successive). That holding has not been overturned. However, in Cook v. 

Ryan, 688 F.3d 598, 608 (9th Cir. 2012), the court ruled that a Fed.R.Civ.P 60(b) motion 

attacking a previous, final ruling on inter alia, limitations grounds, was not attacking a ruling on 

the "merits," and hence could not be considered a successive petition. The issue addressed in 

both cases (whether a previous petition dismissed for being untimely makes a second attack in 

habeas as one being "on the merits" of a conviction and "successive") appears similar, but the 

outcome of each case appears to be conflicting, and based simply on the form in which a 

petitioner makes his attack on the previous ruling, i.e., a second petition versus a Rule 

60(b)motion.2 Perhaps an appellate ruling in this case could clear up the apparent confusion.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of the Court shall construe ECF number 30 as both a request for certificate

of appealability and as a notice of appeal of the judgment, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 

4(a), and process the appeal to the Ninth Circuit. 

2. A certificate of appealability is issued in the present action.

3. The Clerk of the Court shall serve this order on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Dated: April 17, 2014

 1

 Except for the requirement that appealable issues be specifically identified, the standard for 

issuance of a certificate of appealability is the same as the standard that applied to issuance of a 

certificate of probable cause. Jennings, at 1010.

2 Cook itself involved a decision dismissing the claim on procedural default grounds, but the 

opinion expressly included limitations dismissals as being included in its pronouncement.

Case 2:13-cv-01276-MCE-GGH Document 31 Filed 04/22/14 Page 2 of 2