Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01467/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01467-9/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rosanne Campbell
Respondent
Steven Robert Sloan
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN ROBERT SLOAN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

ROSANNE CAMPBELL, WARDEN, )

)

Respondent. )

)

____________________________________)

CV F 05-1467 AWI SMS HC

ORDER GRANTING

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

(Document #29)

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

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On January 3, 2007, the court adopted the

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations, granted Respondent’s motion to dismiss,

and dismissed the petition for writ of habeas corpus because it was not filed within 28 U.S.C. §

2244(d)(1)’s one year limitation period. On January 31, 2007, the Clerk of the Court entered

judgment. On January 29, 2007, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal and request a certificate of

appealability.

A prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district

court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). The controlling statute is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which

provides as follows:

(a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 before a district

Case 1:05-cv-01467-AWI -SMS Document 30 Filed 04/16/07 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

judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the court of appeals for the

circuit in which the proceeding is held.

 (b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding to test the validity

of a warrant to remove to another district or place for commitment or trial a person

charged with a criminal offense against the United States, or to test the validity of such

person's detention pending removal proceedings.

 (c)(1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an appeal may

not be taken to the court of appeals from–

 (A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of

arises out of process issued by a State court; or

 (B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.

 (2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the applicant has

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

 (3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which specific issue

or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).

When the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the

prisoner's underlying constitutional claim, a certificate of appealability should issue, and an

appeal of the district court's order may be taken, if the petitioner 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 procedural ruling. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). 

In the present case, the court finds that reasonable jurists may debate this court’s

determination that Petitioner violated 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)’s one year statute of limitation. 

Specifically, reasonable jurists may debate the proper way for the court to determine when a

petition is “filed” pursuant to the prisoner mailbox rule when the court is faced with conflicting

evidence. Accordingly, the court hereby ORDERS that:

1. Petitioner’s motion for a certificate of appealability is GRANTED;

2. A certificate of appealability is GRANTED on the issue of whether the court

correctly weighed the evidence concerning the filing date of Petitioner’s petition

and whether an evidentiary hearing was required.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 13, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01467-AWI -SMS Document 30 Filed 04/16/07 Page 2 of 2