Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_12-cv-03754/USCOURTS-cand-5_12-cv-03754-2/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

Case No.: 5:12-cv-03754-EJD

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ANTONIO URIBE,

Plaintiff,

v.

KAMALA HARRIS, Attorney General of 

the State of California,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:12-cv-03754-EJD 

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY

In an order filed on August 24, 2015, this court found that it lacked subject matter 

jurisdiction over Petitioner Antonio Uribe’s (“Petitioner”) petition for a writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 because he was not in custody at the time he commenced the

proceeding. The court also found that Petitioner could not rely on Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 

356 (2010) to avoid the in-custody requirement. The court granted Respondent’s motion to 

dismiss on those grounds and entered judgment, from which Petitioner appealed. The court now 

considers whether Petitioner is entitled to a certificate of appealability (“COA”).

When, as here, “the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without 

reaching the prisoner’s underlying constitutional claim, a COA should issue (and an appeal of the 

district court’s order may be taken) if 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.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478 (2000). Having reviewed the record here, the 

court finds that “jurists or reason” could not find debatable either that Petitioner was not in 

custody when he filed the § 2254 petition, or that Padilla did not excuse that requirement. As 

Case 5:12-cv-03754-EJD Document 12 Filed 11/12/15 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No.: 5:12-cv-03754-EJD

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

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

Northern District of California

discussed in the order, Petitioner impliedly conceded that his state sentence fully expired before he 

filed the § 2254 petition, and authority subsequent to Padilla clarified that its holding does not 

apply retroactively. 

Accordingly, the court DENIES a certificate of appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 12, 2015

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:12-cv-03754-EJD Document 12 Filed 11/12/15 Page 2 of 2