Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02498/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02498-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mark Wayne Green
Petitioner
Anthony Lamarque
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

 For reasons that are not clear, petitioner’s notice of 1

appeal was not timely processed.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK WAYNE GREEN, No. CIV S-02-2498 MCE JFM P

Petitioner, 

v . ORDER

ANTHONY LAMARQUE,

Respondent. 

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has timely

filed a notice of appeal of this court’s January 9, 20031

dismissal of his application for a writ of habeas corpus for

failure to exhaust state remedies. Before petitioner can appeal

this decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).

///

///

Case 2:02-cv-02498-MCE -JFM Document 8 Filed 09/14/05 Page 1 of 3
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

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

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, 120

S.Ct. 1595, 1604 (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 petitioner has exhausted state

remedies. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability should not

issue in this action.

///

///

Case 2:02-cv-02498-MCE -JFM Document 8 Filed 09/14/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY THAT:

1. A certificate of appealability should not issue in this

action; and

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to forthwith process

petitioner’s appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the

Ninth Circuit.

DATED: September 14, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-02498-MCE -JFM Document 8 Filed 09/14/05 Page 3 of 3