Haywood v. San Diego, CA Sheriff
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- dismissed — 27 When a petition is, as here, dismissed on procedural grounds, a COA should be granted 28 only if two elements are satisfied: (1) “jurists of
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Michael M. Anello (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se state prisoner's request for a certificate of appealability (COA) following the dismissal of her § 2254 habeas petition on procedural grounds. The court declined to issue a COA, finding that the procedural ruling was not debatable and that the petitioner had already filed a § 1983 action.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Decline to issue Certificate of Appealability“Accordingly, the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability in this case.” | substantial evidence | agree with court The court correctly applied the two-prong test from Slack v. McDaniel for procedural dismissals. The order recites that the petitioner failed to show that jurists of reason would find the procedural ruling (abstention/§ 1983 requirement) debatable. Given the footnote indicating the petitioner had already filed the § 1983 action, the procedural bar was clear, making the denial of a COA appropriate. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise but legally sufficient. It correctly identifies the applicable standard from Slack v. McDaniel for procedural dismissals. It applies the standard to the specific facts (procedural bar via abstention/§ 1983 requirement) and notes the petitioner's failure to meet the 'debatable' threshold. The footnote regarding the pending § 1983 action reinforces the procedural nature of the dismissal. No significant legal gaps or errors are apparent.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERICA D. HAYWOOD, Case No. 19cv1784 - MMA (RBB)
12 Petitioner, ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE 13 v. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 14 SAN DIEGO SHERIFF, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 Erica D. Haywood (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a 18 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Doc. No. 1. On 19 September 24, 2019, the Court dismissed the petition without prejudice as barred under 20 the abstention doctrine. The Court further determined that Petitioner’s claims should be 21 brought in an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983—not in a § 2254 petition. Doc. No. 3 22 at 1, 3. 23 Rule 11 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases states that “the district 24 court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse 25 to the applicant.” A certificate of appealability (“COA”) is not issued unless there is “a 26 substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 27 When a petition is, as here, dismissed on procedural grounds, a COA should be granted 28 only if two elements are satisfied: (1) “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether 1 || the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’; and (2) “jurists of 2 ||reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural 3 ||ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). As each of these components 4 a “threshold inquiry,” the federal court “may find that it can dispose of the application 5 ||in a fair and prompt manner if it proceeds first to resolve the issue whose answer is more 6 || apparent from the record and arguments.” Jd. at 485. Petitioner has not shown that 7 ||jurists of reason would find anything debatable in the procedural ruling that the petition is 8 || barred by the abstention doctrine and should be brought instead as a § 1983 action.! 9 || Thus, the Court need not decide whether the application states a valid constitutional 10 |/claim. See id. at 485. 11 Accordingly, the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability in this 12 || case. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 Dated: October 10, 2019 16 “Widths / hipltr 17 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 8 'Tn fact, Petitioner filed a § 1983 action in this District on October 9, 2019. See Complaint, Haywood v. U.C. San Diego et al. (S.D. Cal. 2019) (No. 3:19-cv-1955 MMA (BGS)).