Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00347/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00347-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Victor O’Neil Dema, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Campanero, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-347-PHX-DGC (LOA)

ORDER

Petitioner’s habeas appeal was remanded by the Ninth Circuit for the limited purpose

of granting or denying a Certificate of Appealability (“COA”). Doc. 12. Petitioner’s habeas

petition was dismissed without prejudice for failing to comply with court rules and

instructions, and Petitioner was granted leave to file an amended petition within 30 days of

the order. Doc. 6. Petitioner filed an interlocutory appeal before the expiration of the 30-day

amendment period (Doc. 7), and did not file an amended petition. After the expiration of the

amendment period, the Clerk entered judgment dismissing the case without prejudice.

Doc. 11. Petitioner has not appealed that judgment. Although 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) requires

COAs only for final orders, and the appeal in this case was an interlocutory appeal (Doc.7),

the Court assumes in light of remand instructions that this Court has the power to issue a

COA under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) for interlocutory appeals.

 “A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the applicant

has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. §

Case 2:11-cv-00347-DGC--LOA Document 14 Filed 06/20/11 Page 1 of 3
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 -

2253(c)(2). A petitioner meets the criteria of § 2253(c)(2) by showing that “reasonable

jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been

resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve

encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting

Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 (1983)). A dismissal on procedural grounds does

not necessarily preclude a COA from issuing. See id. at 483 (“In setting forth the

preconditions for issuance of a COA under § 2253(c), Congress expressed no intention to

allow trial court procedural error to bar vindication of substantial constitutional rights on

appeal.”). Where a procedural dismissal occurred, however, “a COA should issue when the

prisoner shows, at least, 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.” Id. at 484

(emphasis added). “Where a plain procedural bar is present and the district court is correct

to invoke it to dispose of the case, a reasonable jurist could not conclude either that the

district court erred in dismissing the petition or that the petitioner should be allowed to

proceed further. In such a circumstance, no appeal would be warranted.” Id.

Pro se plaintiffs are expected to abide by the rules of the court in which they litigate.

Carter v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1986). Moreover, a

prisoner attacking his or her state conviction must exhaust state remedies before a federal

court will entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982);

Szeto v. Rushen, 709 F.2d 1340 (9th Cir. 1983). The federal court will not entertain a petition

for writ of habeas corpus unless each and every issue has been exhausted. Rose, 455 U.S.

at 521-22. The failure to exhaust subjects a petitioner to dismissal. Gutierrez v. Griggs, 695

F.2d 1195 (9th Cir. 1983).

The Court found that Petitioner has not substantially complied with court rules for

purported claims 5 through 20. Doc. 6 at 2. Therefore, dismissal without prejudice of these

purported claims on procedural grounds was proper, and the Court finds that jurists of reason

would not disagree.

Case 2:11-cv-00347-DGC--LOA Document 14 Filed 06/20/11 Page 2 of 3
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 The Court’s statement that “Petitioner affirmatively alleges that the issues raised in all

four grounds were presented to the Arizona Supreme Court” (Doc. 6 at 2) does not constitute

a finding that the issues were exhausted. The Court specifically stated later in the order that

the amended petition “must also provide information as to how he has first exhausted his

administrative remedies as to each and every claim.” Id. at 3.

 2

 A notice of appeal is deemed a request for a COA where a petitioner fails to otherwise

make an express request. United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997).

- 3 -

Dismissal of claims 1 through 4 without prejudice and with leave to amend was also

proper for two independent reasons. First, Petitioner likely intended all twenty claims be

reviewed, and permitting Petitioner to properly file all claims is judicially efficient. See Rule

2(c)(1), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (stating that

a petition must specify all grounds on which relief is available to petitioner). Second, the

petition stated that claims 1 through 4 were not presented before the Arizona Court of

Appeals (Doc. 1 at 6-9), thereby facially indicating that Petitioner has not exhausted the

claims in state court as required.1

 See Rose, 455 U.S. at 521-22. The Court gave Petitioner

an opportunity to “provide information as to how he has first exhausted his administrative

remedies as to each and every claim” in an amended petition, an opportunity that Petitioner

declined to seize. For these reasons, the Court finds that jurists of reason would not disagree

with the Court’s procedural disposition of claims 1 through 4.

In light of the above, the Court will deny Petitioner’s implied request for a COA.2

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s implied request for a COA (Doc. 7) is denied.

DATED this 20th day of June, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-00347-DGC--LOA Document 14 Filed 06/20/11 Page 3 of 3