Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02073/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02073-8/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEE CLARKE, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-2073 LKK EFB P

vs.

SHASTA COUNTY 

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks to appeal this court’s November 20,

2006, dismissal of his application for a writ of habeas corpus because he failed to file an

amended petition. 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).

Petitioner’s request, filed nearly eight months after entry of judgment, is untimely. See

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Additionally, in cases 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

Case 2:05-cv-02073-LKK -EFB Document 36 Filed 12/13/07 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

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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1604 (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

had timely filed the habeas petition. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability should not issue

in this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 13, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-02073-LKK -EFB Document 36 Filed 12/13/07 Page 2 of 2