Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-05793/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-05793-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joga S. Sandher
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

JOGA S. SANDHER,

Petitioner,

 vs.

JAMES A. YATES, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 08-5793 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 in a ruling entered on January 22, 2010. 

Judgment was entered that day. Petitioner has filed a notice of appeal. Although he has

not asked for a certificate of appealability, the notice of appeal will be deemed to constitute

such a request. See United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997). 

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

least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim

Case 4:08-cv-05793-PJH Document 17 Filed 03/10/10 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

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 in his state habeas action petitioner waited

nearly two years and nine months before proceeding from the California Court of Appeal to

the California Supreme Court. As a consequence, the supreme court denied the petition as

untimely, which in turn meant that petitioner was not entitled to tolling for the period

between the court of appeal decision and that of the supreme court, a bit more than three

years. Because these facts are clear, and petitioner’s arguments to the contrary were

insubstantial, the court’s decision would not be found debatable by jurists of reason. The

request for a certificate of appealability implied from the notice of appeal (document 16) 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); Asrar, 116 F.3d at 1270. 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 10, 2010. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

P:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.08\SANDHER5793.COA-deny.wpd

Case 4:08-cv-05793-PJH Document 17 Filed 03/10/10 Page 2 of 2