Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01649/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01649-0/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

09cv1649

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEE V. QUILLAR,

Petitioner,

v.

M.S. EVANS, Warden, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 09cv1649 JAH(JMA)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY

On July 29, 2009, petitioner, a state prisoner appearing pro se, filed petition for writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his conviction in San Diego

Superior Court. This Court, on August 14, 2009, summarily dismissed the petition as a

barred successive petition filed without permission from the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). On August 31, 2009, petitioner filed a

motion seeking relief from this Court’s August 14, 2009 order, contending that his

petition should not have been considered successive because he did not challenge his

conviction in the new petition but, instead, simply sought an order from the Court

requiring the state court to provide petitioner with the reporter’s transcripts in his state

court proceedings. On September 25, 2009, this Court denied petitioner’s motion for

relief from this Court’s August 14, 2009 order, finding that, even if this Court were to

construe the petition as simply seeking an order requiring the state court to provide

petitioner with reporter’s transcripts, such a request is not a cognizable claim on federal

habeas review. See Doc. # 7 at 2 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254; Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S.

Case 3:09-cv-01649-JAH-JMA Document 9 Filed 10/16/09 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 09cv1649

475, 500 (1973); Heck v. Humphrey, 512, U.S. 477, 480-85 (1994)). Therefore, this

Court found the prior order summarily dismissing the petition was not in error.

On October 8, 2009, petitioner filed a notice of appeal. See Doc. # 8. Although

petitioner did not expressly request a certificate of appealability concurrently with his

notice of appeal, this Court sua sponte considers whether a certificate of appealability

should be granted. See Fed.R.App.P. 22(b); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270

(9th Cir. 1997)(“If no express request is made for a certificate of appealability, the notice

of appeal shall be deemed to constitute a request for certificate.”).

A certificate of appealability is authorized “if the applicant has made a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To meet this

threshold showing, a petitioner must show : (1) the issues are debatable among jurists of

reason; or (2) that a court could resolve the issues in a different manner; or (3) that the

questions are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. Lambright v.

Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022, 1024-25 (9th Cir. 2000)(citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473

(2000) and Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983)).

Here, petitioner appeals this Court’s summary order dismissing the petition for writ

of habeas corpus as successive and the Court’s denial of petitioner’s motion for relief from

the summary dismissal order. This Court finds that a certificate of appealability is not

warranted in this instance because the dismissal of the instant petition under the

circumstances here is not an issue debatable among jurists of reason nor could any other

court resolve the issue in a different manner. Lambright, 220 F.3d at 1024-25.

Accordingly, this Court DENIES a certificate of appealability in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 16, 2009

JOHN A. HOUSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-01649-JAH-JMA Document 9 Filed 10/16/09 Page 2 of 2