Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-03302/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-03302-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joshua Steven Novak
Petitioner
James A. Yates
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

JOSHUA STEVEN NOVAK,

Petitioner,

 vs.

JAMES A. YATES, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 08-3302 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 granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the case as barred by the statute of

limitations. Petitioner has appealed. Although he does not ask for a certificate of

appealability (“COA”), the notice of appeal will be deemed to be such a request. See

United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997) (if no express request is made

for a COA, the notice of appeal shall be deemed to constitute a request for a certificate). 

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 on statute of limitations grounds,

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

Case 4:08-cv-03302-PJH Document 16 Filed 03/16/10 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

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.” 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 it was filed about a year and a half after

expiration of the limitations period, and petitioner’s arguments for equitable tolling or

application of the putative “actual innocence” exception to the limitations bar were without

merit. Although petitioner’s contentions were such that they required some discussion, the

conclusion that they were without merit is not one which reasonable jurists would find

debatable or wrong. The request for a certificate of appealability implied from the notice of

appeal 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: March 16, 2010. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

P:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.08\NOVAK3302.COA.wpd

Case 4:08-cv-03302-PJH Document 16 Filed 03/16/10 Page 2 of 2