Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01334/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01334-10/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lee Peyton
Petitioner
Jeanice Woodword
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEE PEYTON,

Petitioner,

v.

JEANICE WOODWORD,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 05-1334 LJO DLB HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S REQUEST

FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

[Doc. 38]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On March 7, 2007, the instant petition was dismissed, without prejudice, as moot and

unexhausted, and judgement was entered. (Court Docs. 35, 36.) Petitioner filed a notice of

appeal on May 7, 2007, and an application for a certificate of appealability on May 8, 2007. 

(Court Docs. 37, 38.) 

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,

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

Case 1:05-cv-01334-LJO-DLB Document 39 Filed 05/14/07 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

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 as untimeliness. 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: May 14, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01334-LJO-DLB Document 39 Filed 05/14/07 Page 2 of 2