Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-01874/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-01874-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
H. B. Anglea
Respondent
Keith E. Woodhouse
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KEITH E. WOODHOUSE, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

H. B. ANGLEA, Warden, 

Respondent. 

Case No. 18-cv-01874-YGR (PR) 

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 

Petitioner Keith E. Woodhouse filed the instant pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On January 22, 2019, the Court dismissed the petition for failure to 

exhaust state court remedies. Dkt. 13. On February 11, 2019, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal. 

Dkt. 15. The Court construes Petitioner’s notice of appeal as an application for a certificate of 

appealability (“COA”). See United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997); 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3). 

In an Order dated February 15, 2019, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the district 

court “for the limited purpose of granting or denying a [COA] at the court’s earliest convenience.” 

Dkt. 17 at 1. 

An appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from the final order in a habeas corpus 

proceeding unless the petitioner first obtains a COA. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 

22(b). Section 2253(c)(1) applies to an appeal of a final order entered on a procedural question 

antecedent to the merits, as here. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483 (2000). 

 “Determining whether a COA should issue where the petition was dismissed on 

procedural grounds has two components, one directed at the underlying constitutional claims and 

one directed at the district court’s procedural holding.” Id. at 484-85. “When the district court 

denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner’s underlying 

constitutional claim, a COA should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason 

would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional 

right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its 

Case 4:18-cv-01874-YGR Document 20 Filed 03/12/19 Page 1 of 2
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

procedural ruling.” Id. at 484. As each of these components is a “threshold inquiry,” the federal 

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.” Id. at 

485. Supreme Court jurisprudence “allows and encourages” federal courts to first resolve the 

procedural issue, as was done here. See id. 

The petition was dismissed for failure to exhaust state court remedies. See Dkt. 13 at 9 

(citing Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 510 (1982)). The dismissal was without prejudice to 

Petitioner’s returning to federal court after exhausting his state court remedies. See id. Because 

jurists of reason would not find the Court’s conclusion debatable or wrong, the motion for a COA 

is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 12, 2019 

 

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:18-cv-01874-YGR Document 20 Filed 03/12/19 Page 2 of 2