Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01592/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01592-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Chandra Kishor
Petitioner
D.K. Sisto
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHANDRA KISHOR, 

Petitioner, 2:06-cv-1592-GEB-KJM-P

vs.

D.K. SISTO, Warden, 

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has timely filed a notice of appeal of

this court's May 21, 2007 dismissal of his application for a writ of habeas corpus as duplicative. 

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). 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

Case 2:06-cv-01592-GEB -KJM Document 14 Filed 08/30/07 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

2

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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 30, 2007

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-01592-GEB -KJM Document 14 Filed 08/30/07 Page 2 of 2