Haywood v. San Diego, CA Sheriff

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 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. 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)).