Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-04446/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-04446-3/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

RODNEY BLACH,

Petitioner,

 vs.

JOHN DOVEY, Director of Adult

Institutions, CDCR,

Respondent. /

No. C 05-4446 PJH (PR)

ORDER GRANTING

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY AND LEAVE

TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS ON APPEAL

This is a habeas case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed pro se by a state prisoner. The

court granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition as untimely in an order entered

on September 9, 2009. Petitioner has filed a notice of appeal, a motion for a certificate of

appealability (“COA”), a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal, and a

motion to proceed IFP “part two.” The case has been remanded by the court of appeals for

a ruling on the motion for a COA.

DISCUSSION

A petitioner may not appeal a final order in a federal habeas corpus proceeding

without first obtaining a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App.

P. 22(b). Section 2253(c)(1) applies to an appeal of a final order entered on a procedural

question antecedent to the merits, for instance a dismissal on statute of limitations grounds,

as here. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483 (2000).

“Determining whether a COA should issue where the petition was dismissed on

procedural grounds has two components, one directed at the underlying constitutional

claims and one directed at the district court’s procedural holding.” Id. at 484-85. “When the

district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the

Case 4:05-cv-04446-PJH Document 73 Filed 02/12/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

prisoner’s underlying constitutional claim, 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. As each of these

components is a “threshold inquiry,” the federal court “may find that it can dispose of the

application in a fair and prompt manner if it proceeds first to resolve the issue whose

answer is more apparent from the record and arguments.” Id. at 485. Supreme Court

jurisprudence “allows and encourages” federal courts to first resolve the procedural issue,

as was done here. See id. 

The petition was dismissed because it was filed after expiration of the limitations

period and petitioner failed to establish that he was entitled to equitable tolling or to a

starting date for the limitations period other than completion of direct review. His assertions

regarding access to his legal papers were conclusory and did not clarify which papers he

was unable to have access to and for what periods of time. Nevertheless, reasonable

jurists might find the court’s assessment of the limitations issue debatable or wrong, and

petitioner has presented some issues that are of constitutional dimension. The motion for a

certificate of appealability (document 66 on the docket) is GRANTED.

Petitioner’s motions to proceed IFP on appeal (documents 67 and 69) are

GRANTED.

The clerk shall immediately transmit the file, including a copy of this order, to the

Court of Appeals. See Fed. R.App.P. 22(b); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270

(9th Cir. 1997). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 12, 2010. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-04446-PJH Document 73 Filed 02/12/10 Page 2 of 2