Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-05309/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-05309-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lamerle R. Johnson
Petitioner
Mike Knowles
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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAMERLE RONNIE JOHNSON,

Petitioner,

 vs.

MIKE KNOWLES, Warden

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 02-5309 JSW (PR)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY

(Docket no. 40)

Petitioner Lamerle R. Johnson, a prisoner of the State of California, filed a pro se 28

U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. After this case was remanded from the

Ninth Circuit for this Court to determine whether Petitioner’s state court filings were

sufficiently specific to constitute an “application for State post-conviction or other

collateral review” under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), Petitioner’s petition was found untimely in

an order dated December 22, 2006 (docket no. 38). Petitioner has now filed a notice of

appeal and a motion requesting a certificate of appealability (docket no 40). 

A judge shall grant a COA "only if the applicant has made a substantial showing

of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “Determining whether a

COA should issue where the petition was dismissed on procedural grounds has two

components, one directed at the underlying constitutional claims and one directed at the

district court’s procedural holding.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). 

“When the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching

the prisoner’s underlying constitutional claim, a COA should issue when 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.” Id. at 484; see

Case 3:02-cv-05309-JSW Document 41 Filed 02/05/07 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

James v. Giles, 221 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 2000). As each of these components is a

“threshold inquiry,” the federal court “may find that it can dispose of the application in a

fair and prompt manner if it proceeds first to resolve the issue whose answer is more

apparent from the record and arguments.” Slack, 529 U.S. at 485. Supreme Court

jurisprudence “allows and encourages” federal courts to first resolve the procedural

issue. See id. 

Petitioner has not established that “jurists of reason would find it debatable

whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Id. at 484. Accordingly,

the request for a certificate of appealability is DENIED (docket no. 40). The Clerk of Court

shall forward this order, along with the case file, to the United States Court of Appeals for the

Ninth Circuit. United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 

 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

2/5/2007

Case 3:02-cv-05309-JSW Document 41 Filed 02/05/07 Page 2 of 2