Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01803/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01803-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sarhan Ahmad Ahmad
Petitioner
Thomas Felker
Respondent

Document Text:

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SARHAN AHMAD AHMAD,

Petitioner, 2:06-cv-1803-GEB-JFM-P

vs.

THOMAS FELKER, Warden,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has timely filed a notice of appeal of

this court's September 6, 2007 dismissal of his application for a writ of habeas corpus because

the petition was filed beyond the one-year statute of limitations. Before petitioner can appeal this

decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).

A certificate of appealability may issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the

applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2). The court must either issue a certificate of appealability indicating which issues

satisfy the required showing or must state the reasons why such a certificate should not issue. 

Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).

Where, as here, the petition was dismissed on procedural grounds, a certificate of

appealability “should issue if the prisoner can show: (1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it

Case 2:06-cv-01803-GEB -JFM Document 26 Filed 10/10/07 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

2

debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling’; and (2) ‘that jurists of

reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a

constitutional right.’” Morris v. Woodford, 229 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1604 (2000)).

After careful review of the entire record herein, this court finds that petitioner has

not satisfied the first requirement for issuance of a certificate of appealability in this case.

Specifically, there is no showing that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether petitioner

had timely filed the habeas petition. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability should not issue

in this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 8, 2007

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-01803-GEB -JFM Document 26 Filed 10/10/07 Page 2 of 2