Dixon v. Baker et al

Filing 26

ORDER denying 22 Motion for Certificate of Appealability re 21 Notice of Appeal. (E-mail notice (NEF) sent to the US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.) Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 8/26/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9
10
TERRY D. DIXON,
11
12
13
14
15

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
RENEE BAKER, et al.,
)
)
Respondents.
)
____________________________________/

3:13-cv-00248-RCJ-WGC
ORDER

16
This closed action is a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus, filed pursuant 28 U.S.C.
17
§ 2254, by a Nevada state prisoner. By order filed July 9, 2014, the Court entered an order
18
dismissing this action without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies. (ECF No. 19).
19
Judgment was entered the same date. (ECF No. 20).
20
Petitioner has filed a notice of appeal and a motion for a certificate of appealability. (ECF
21
Nos. 21 & 22). In order to proceed with his appeal, petitioner must receive a certificate of
22
23

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); Fed. R. App. P. 22; 9th Cir. R. 22-1; Allen v. Ornoski, 435
F.3d 946, 950-951 (9th Cir. 2006); see also United States v. Mikels, 236 F.3d 550, 551-52 (9th Cir.

24
2001). Generally, a petitioner must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
25
right” to warrant a certificate of appealability. Id.; 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529
26

1

U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000). “The petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the

2

district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Id. (quoting Slack, 529

3

U.S. at 484). In order to meet this threshold inquiry, the petitioner has the burden of demonstrating

4

that the issues are debatable among jurists of reason; that a court could resolve the issues differently;

5

or that the questions are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. Id. No reasonable

6

jurist could conclude that this Court’s order dismissing this action without prejudice was erroneous.

7

Petitioner is not entitled to a certificate of appealability.

8
9
10

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for a certificate of appealability
(ECF No. 22) is DENIED.
Dated: this ______day of August, 2014.
Dated This 26th day of August, 2014.

11
12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

2