Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROLAND I. SEAU, Case No.: 3:24-cv-572-CAB-DEB 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE 13 v. OF APPEALABILITY 14 CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER and ROB BONTA, The Attorney General of the 15 State of California 16 Respondent. 17 18 19 Petitioner Roland I. Seau, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, submitted a Petition for 20 Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. [Doc. No. 1 (“Petition”).] 21 Respondent filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court granted because the Petition was 22 time-barred under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), 23 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). [Doc. Nos. 11, 16.] Petitioner appealed the dismissal to the Ninth 24 Circuit. [Doc. No. 18.] The Ninth Circuit remanded the case for the limited purpose of 25 granting or denying a certificate of appealability. [Doc. No. 21.] For the following reasons, 26 the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. 27 “[A] state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to 28 1 circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–36 (2003). Specifically, in order 2 to appeal, a state prisoner must receive a certificate of appealability from a circuit justice 3 or judge. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A); Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, Rule 11(a). A 4 certificate of appealability shall issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing 5 of the denial of a constitutional right[,]” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), and the certificate must 6 indicate which issues satisfy this standard. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3). 7 Here, Petitioner has not made such a showing. Petitioner filed his Petition after the 8 expiration of the one-year statute of limitations contained in AEDPA. 28 U.S.C. 9 § 2244(d)(1)(A); [Doc. No. 14 at 2]. Petitioner was convicted on October 2, 2015. [Doc. 10 No. 14 at 2.] He pursued appeal through the California Court of Appeal and the California 11 Supreme Court, after which his conviction became final on June 26, 2018. [Doc. No. 14 12 at 2–4.] AEDPA therefore required Petitioner to file his Petition by June 27, 2019; he did 13 not do so until March 22, 2024. [Doc. No. 14 at 4.] His Petition is therefore time-barred 14 unless one of AEDPA’s exceptions applies. 15 In his opposition to the motion to dismiss, Petitioner contended that AEDPA’s 16 “actual innocence” exception applies. [Doc. No. 13 at 8–12.] This exception requires a 17 petitioner to “support his allegations of constitutional error with new reliable evidence— 18 whether it be exculpatory scientific evidence, trustworthy eyewitness accounts, or critical 19 physical evidence—that was not presented at trial.” Lee v. Lampert, 653 F.3d 929, 938 20 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995)). “The evidence of innocence 21 must be ‘so strong that a court cannot have confidence in the outcome of the trial unless 22 the court is also satisfied that the trial was free of nonharmless constitutional error.’” Id. 23 at 937; see also Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 623 (1998) (“‘[A]ctual innocence’ 24 means factual innocence, not mere legal insufficiency.”). 25 Petitioner argued that the medical examiner’s pre-trial testimony—which was never 26 presented to the jury—“listed two possible causes of death” and that trial counsel should 27 have hired an independent medical examiner to dispute the victim’s actual cause of death. 28 [Doc. No. 13 at 9.] This is not new reliable evidence; it is Petitioner’s speculation. And 1 ||even if it were “new,” it is not adequate to show that, had it been presented at trial, no 2 |{reasonable juror would have convicted Petitioner. See McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 3 ||383, 400-01 (2013); see also Larsen v. Soto, 742 F.3d 1083, 1096 (9th Cir. 2013) (“[W]e 4 || have denied access to the Schlup gateway where a petitioner’s evidence of innocence was 5 ||merely cumulative or speculative or was insufficient to overcome otherwise convincing 6 || proof of guilt.”’). 7 The Court therefore concludes that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of 8 denial of a constitutional right and that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s 9 || decision to dismiss the Petition debatable. The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of 10 || appealability. 11 It is SO ORDERED. 12 || Dated: April 16, 2026 (Kyge— 13 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28