Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06339/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06339-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mitchell Andrew Caravayo
Petitioner
David L. Runnels
Respondent

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MITCHELL ANDREW CARAVAYO,

Petitioner,

 v.

DAVID L. RUNNELS, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 06-06339 WHA

ORDER DENYING

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

Petitioner Mitchell Caravayo filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this case

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. By order dated June 4, 2007, this Court dismissed the petition on

the ground that it was filed beyond the one-year statute of limitations. Judgment was entered in

favor of respondent the same day. On June 12, 2007, petitioner filed a notice of appeal. 

Although petitioner did not request a certificate of appealability, the notice of appeal will be

deemed such a request under 28 U.S.C. 2253(c). United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270

(9th Cir. 1997).

A district court judge shall grant a certificate of appealability “only if the applicant has

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2). 

Where a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, the showing required

to satisfy Section 2253(c) is straightforward: the petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable

jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or

wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483 (2000). When the district court, as here, denies a

habeas 

Case 3:06-cv-06339-WHA Document 24 Filed 06/26/07 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

petition on procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner’s underlying constitutional claim,

a certificate of appealability should issue when the petitioner shows 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.

The certificate of appealability is DENIED. As explained more fully in the June 4 order,

there were at least 565 days that passed between entry of final judgment in the direct appeal and

the filing of the instant habeas petition that were wholly unexplained and clearly establish the

untimeliness of the federal petition. This order finds that reasonable jurists would not consider

this point debatable. 

The Clerk of the Court shall transmit the file, including a copy of this order, to the Court

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 26, 2007. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-06339-WHA Document 24 Filed 06/26/07 Page 2 of 2