Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00369/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00369-0/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

07cv0369

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE E. FALU-MENDOZA,

Petitioner,

v.

J.W. SULLIAVAN, Warden, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 07CV0369 JAH (JMA)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY

On April 18, 2007, this Court entered judgment dismissing the instant petition for writ

of habeas corpus brought by petitioner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On June 18, 2007,

petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal. Although petitioner does not expressly seek a certificate of

appealability, 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, petitioner must show that: (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)).

Case 3:07-cv-00369-JAH-JMA Document 9 Filed 06/21/07 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

27

28

2 07cv0369

Here, the Court dismissed petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus because the Court is barred

from considering the claims by the abstention doctrine announced in Younger v. Harris, 401

U.S. 37 (1971), which require federal courts to not interfere with ongoing state criminal

proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances. Petitioner having admitted in his petition that

no decision on his direct appeal before the California Court of Appeal had been rendered at the

time he filed his federal habeas petition, and having found no extraordinary circumstances

existed which would relieve the Court of its obligation to abstain from interfering with the state

court proceedings, this Court dismissed the petition without considering the merits of

petitioner’s claims. Under these circumstances, this Court finds that a certificate of

appealability is not warranted because the decision to abstain in this case 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 as to the claims presented in the instant petition.

Dated: June 21, 2007

HON. JOHN A. HOUSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00369-JAH-JMA Document 9 Filed 06/21/07 Page 2 of 2