Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02933/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02933-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles Harrison
Respondent
Leonard Ruben Moreno
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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEONARD RUBEN MORENO,

Petitioner,

 v.

CHARLES HARRISON, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

No. C-04-2933 MMC

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S

REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF A

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

(Docket No. 41)

On August 18, 2006, the Court dismissed Leonard Ruben Moreno’s (“Moreno”)

petition for a writ of habeas corpus as untimely. On September 20, 2006, Moreno filed a

request for issuance of a certificate of appealability, and on the following date, September

21, 2006, Moreno filed a notice of appeal. 

An appeal may not be taken from a final order in a habeas proceeding “[u]nless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability[.]” See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). A

certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing

of the denial of a constitutional right.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Where, as here, “the

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

prisoner’s underlying constitutional claim, a [certificate of appealability] 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 procedural ruling.” See

Case 3:04-cv-02933-MMC Document 44 Filed 10/10/06 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

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). A certificate of appealability must “indicate

which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required[.]” See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3).

Here, the Court previously issued an order to show cause, finding petitioner had

raised five cognizable claims for relief. (See Order to Show Cause, filed September 29,

2004, at 2.) Petitioner thus meets the first part of the Slack test. See Slack v. McDaniel,

529 U.S. at 484. The Court further finds that reasonable jurists could “find it debatable,”

see id. at 484, whether Moreno’s petition was untimely, in particular, whether Moreno is

entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations as a result of his counsel’s decision,

in reliance on then-existing Ninth Circuit law, to file an untimely state habeas petition for

purposes of exhausting petitioner’s claims.

Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS Moreno’s request for a certificate of

appealability with respect to the following issue: “Whether Moreno is entitled to equitable

tolling of the statute of limitations.”

This order terminates Docket No. 41.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 10, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-02933-MMC Document 44 Filed 10/10/06 Page 2 of 2