Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01898/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01898-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Marshall
Respondent
Floyd Eugene Ray
Petitioner

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FLOYD EUGENE RAY,

Petitioner,

v.

JOHN MARSHALL, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 06-1898 DLB HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

[Doc. 22]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the parties have consented to

the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge.

On October 22, 2007, the Court dismissed the instant petition, with prejudice, as barred

by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) & (2), and judgment was entered. (Court Doc. 20.)

On November 14, 2007, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, along with an application for issuance of a certificate of

appealability. (Court 22.)

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

underlying constitutional claims, the petitioner must show, in order to obtain a certificate of

appealability: (1) that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition stated a valid

claim of a denial of a constitutional right; and (2) 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,

Case 1:06-cv-01898-DLB Document 23 Filed 12/11/07 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

484 (2000). While both showings must be made to obtain a certificate of appealability, “a 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. 

The Court finds that Petitioner has failed to make an adequate showing. The Court does

not find that jurists of reason would not find it debatable whether the petition was properly

dismissed, with prejudice, for violation of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) & (2). Petitioner has not made

the required substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, the Court

hereby DENIES Petitioner's motion for certificate of appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 10, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01898-DLB Document 23 Filed 12/11/07 Page 2 of 2