Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-00845/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-00845-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gregory Lee Gray
Petitioner
M. McDonald
Respondent

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

GREGORY LEE GRAY,

Petitioner,

 vs.

M. MCDONALD, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 10-0845 PJH (PR)

ORDER DENYING

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

This is a habeas case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed pro se by a state prisoner. The

court dismissed the petition in a ruling entered on March 24, 2010, and judgment was

entered that day. Petitioner has filed a timely notice of appeal and a motion for a certificate

of appealability. 

A petitioner may not appeal a final order in a federal habeas corpus proceeding

without first obtaining a certificate of appealability. 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, for instance a dismissal as second or successive, 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

Case 4:10-cv-00845-PJH Document 11 Filed 04/30/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

whether the district court was correct in its 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 because petitioner had a previous case attacking the

same judgment, Gray v. Runnels, C 01-2880 PJH (PR). That case was dismissed as

barred by the statute of limitations and the dismissal was affirmed on appeal. A

subsequent habeas petition directed to the same conviction, Gray v. Felker, 09-2461 PJH

(PR), was dismissed by this court as second or successive. Petitioner did not appeal that

dismissal. And although petitioner referred at one place in the petition to a “Motion for

Reconsideration of Habeas Under Rule 60(b),” it would not have helped petitioner to treat

the petition as if it were a Rule 60(b) motion. In the Ninth Circuit such motions, if directed

to a judgment of conviction, are subject to the same bar as a second or successive petition. 

See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 530-31 (2005). 

 Reasonable jurists would not find the court’s assessment of the procedural issue

debatable or wrong. The request for a certificate of appealability (document number 7 on

the docket) is DENIED.

The clerk shall transmit the file, including a copy of this order, to the Court of

Appeals. See Fed. R.App.P. 22(b); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir.

1997). Petitioner may then ask the Court of Appeals to issue the certificate, see R.App.P.

22(b)(1), or if he does not, the notice of appeal will be construed as such a request, see

R.App.P. 22(b)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 30, 2010. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

P:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.10\GRAY0845.COA.wpd

Case 4:10-cv-00845-PJH Document 11 Filed 04/30/10 Page 2 of 2