Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00891/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00891-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Greg Fizer
Respondent
Louis Alfonso Melendez
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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Louis Alfonso Melendez,

Petitioner,

v.

Warden Greg Fizer,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-891-PHX-SMM

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

On July 19, 2013, this Court denied Petitioner’s motion for Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)

relief. (Doc. 38.) Subsequently, Petitioner’s noticed appeal from this Court’s ruling, NOA

# 13-16776. (Doc. 39.) Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for extension of time

to request certificate of appealability (Doc. 40) and Petitioner’s application for certificate of

appealability (Doc. 41).

Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides that the district judge

must either issue or deny a certificate of appealability (“COA”) when it enters a final order

adverse to the applicant. If a certificate is issued, the court must state the specific issue or

issues that satisfy 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), a COA may

issue only when the petitioner “has made a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” This showing can be established by demonstrating that “reasonable

jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been

resolved in a different manner” or that the issues were “adequate to deserve encouragement

to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (citing Barefoot v. Estelle,

Case 2:05-cv-00891-SMM Document 43 Filed 10/01/13 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 -

463 U.S. 880, 893 & n.4 (1983)).

The Court finds that reasonable jurists could not debate its resolution of Petitioner’s

claims that he had a legitimate excuse to the procedural default of his ineffective assistance

of counsel claims in state court. The question of whether the state court erred in finding

those claims procedurally defaulted is not debatable among jurists of reason. Similarly, there

are no debatable facts or legal authority to support that either Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct.

1309 (2012) or Maples v. Thomas, 132 S. Ct. 912 (2012) excuse Petitioner’s procedurally

defaulted claims. (See Doc. 38.) Accordingly, the Court will decline to issue a COA.

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED DENYING Petitioner’s application for certificate of

appealability. (Doc. 41.) The Clerk of Court shall forward a copy of this Order to the Clerk

of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING Petitioner’s motion for extension of

time to request certificate of appealability. (Doc. 40.) 

DATED this 30th day of September, 2013.

Case 2:05-cv-00891-SMM Document 43 Filed 10/01/13 Page 2 of 2