(HC) Gleason v. Bobbala

Opinion

STANLEY GLEASON, No. 2:20-cv-00406 JAM GGH P Petitioner, v. ORDER M. BOBBALA, et al., Respondents. Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has timely filed a notice of appeal of this court’s April 6, 2020 dismissal of his application for a writ of habeas corpus for failure to state a claim. Before petitioner can appeal this decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A certificate of appealability may issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The court must either issue a certificate of appealability indicating which issues satisfy the required showing or must state the reasons why such a certificate should not issue. Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Where, as here, the petition was dismissed for failure to state a claim, a certificate of appealability “should issue . . . if the prisoner can shows, at least, [1] that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim for the denial of a constitutional right, and [2] that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Petrocelli v. Angelone, 248 F.3d 877, 883-84 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 120 S. Ct. 1595, 1600-01, 1604 (2000)). After careful review of the entire record herein, this court finds that petitioner has not satisfied the first requirement for issuance of a certificate of appealability in this case. Specifically, there is no showing that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition should have been resolved in a different manner. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability should not issue in this action. DATED: June 9, 2020 /s/ John A. Mendez________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE