Haywood v. San Diego, CA Sheriff et al

Filing 11

Order Declining to Issue Certificate of Appealability. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 10/10/2019.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(rmc). (Modified on 10/10/2019: USCA Case Number 19-56185. Order electronically transmitted to the US Court of Appeals via regenerated NEF.) (akr).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Case No. 19cv1784 - MMA (RBB) ERICA D. HAYWOOD, Petitioner, 12 13 v. 14 ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY SAN DIEGO SHERIFF, et al., Respondents. 15 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 19cv1784 - MMA (RBB) 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 is 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.” Id. 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.1 9 Thus, the Court need not decide whether the application states a valid constitutional 10 claim. See id. at 485. 11 12 Accordingly, the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability in this case. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 Dated: October 10, 2019 16 _____________________________ 17 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28                                                 1 In 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)). 2 19cv1784 - MMA (RBB)

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?