Thornton v. Grounds

Filing 10

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY; DENYING 7 LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL; DIRECTING CLERK TO TRANSMIT FILE TO NINTH CIRCUIT. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/2/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

WILLIAM CECIL THORNTON,

4
5
6
7

Petitioner,

Ninth Circuit Case No. 12-15621

v.
RANDY GROUNDS,
Respondent.

8
9

No. C 11-06312 CW (PR)

/

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY; DENYING LEAVE TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON
APPEAL; DIRECTING CLERK TO
TRANSMIT FILE TO NINTH CIRCUIT

Petitioner, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Correctional Training Facility at Soledad, filed the instant

11

petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254,

12

challenging conditions of his parole that require him to register

13

as a sex offender.

14

custody because of a violation of parole terms set in connection

15

with a conviction obtained in the San Diego County Superior Court,

16

maintains that he should not be required to register as a sex

17

offender because such requirement is based on an expired 1990

18

Tennessee conviction for domestic violence.

19

Specifically, Petitioner, who currently is in

On January 10, 2012, the Court dismissed the petition, finding

20

that it is duplicative of Petitioner’s habeas challenge to the

21

Tennessee conviction and California sex-offender registration

22

requirement that currently is pending in the United States District

23

Court for the Southern District of California.

24

Strainer, Case No. C 11-00190 LAB (JMA).

25

See Thornton v.

Petitioner has filed a Notice of Appeal and a request to

26

proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal.

27

remanded the case to this Court for the limited purpose of granting

28

or denying a certificate of appealability (COA).

The Ninth Circuit has

Docket no. 9.

“Determining whether a COA should issue where the petition was

2

dismissed on procedural grounds has two components, one directed at

3

the underlying constitutional claims and one directed at the

4

district court’s procedural holding.”

5

473, 484-85 (2000).

6

petition on procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner’s

7

underlying constitutional claim, a COA should issue when the

8

prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find it

9

debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

1

of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it

11

debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural

12

ruling.”

13

inquiry,” the federal court “may find that it can dispose of the

14

application in a fair and prompt manner if it proceeds first to

15

resolve the issue whose answer is more apparent from the record and

16

arguments.”

17

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

“When the district court denies a habeas

Id. at 484.

As each of these components is a “threshold

Id. at 485.

For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner has not shown that

18

jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the Court was

19

correct in its procedural ruling that the petition is duplicative

20

of the petition pending in the Southern District.

21
22
23
24

Accordingly, a certificate of appealability is DENIED, and
Petitioner’s request to proceed IFP on appeal also is DENIED.
The Clerk of the Court shall transmit a copy of this Order,
together with the case file, to the Ninth Circuit.

25

This Order terminates Docket no. 7.

26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27

Dated: 5/2/2012

______________________________
CLAUDIA WILKEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28
2