Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00980/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00980-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Reginal Prasad
Petitioner
James A. Yates
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

REGINAL PRASAD,

Petitioner, No. 2:09-cv-0980-FCD-JFM (HC)

vs.

JAMES A. YATES, Warden,

Respondent. ORDER

/

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, has timely filed a notice

of appeal of this court’s November 24, 2009 dismissal of his application for a writ of habeas

corpus as barred by the statute of limitations together with a motion for a certificate of

appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) and 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 2:09-cv-00980-FCD-JFM Document 34 Filed 01/07/10 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, 484 (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 this action

is barred by the statute of limitations. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s December 8, 2009 motion for a certificate of appealability is

denied; and

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the United

States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

DATED:

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/pras0980.coapro

January 6, 2010

/s/ Frank C. Damrell, Jr.

Case 2:09-cv-00980-FCD-JFM Document 34 Filed 01/07/10 Page 2 of 2