Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01623/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01623-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gail Lewis
Respondent
Christopher Wachniuk
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER WACHNIUK, No. CIV-S-04-1623 MCE/PAN P

Petitioner, 

v. ORDER

GAIL LEWIS, 

Respondent. 

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has timely

filed a notice of appeal of this court's August 18, 2005,

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).

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).

///

Case 2:04-cv-01623-MCE -PAN Document 22 Filed 09/29/05 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

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 the petition is untimely. Accordingly,

a certificate of appealability should not issue in this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: September 29, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 2:04-cv-01623-MCE -PAN Document 22 Filed 09/29/05 Page 2 of 2