(HC) Meza v. Pfeiffer

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONALD MEZA, No. 2:20-cv-02316-DAD-CSK (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 14 CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER, Warden, (Doc. No. 63) 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner Ronald Meza, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed an 18 application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On September 20, 2022, 19 judgment was entered pursuant to this court’s order granting respondent’s motion to dismiss 20 petitioner’s habeas petition on the grounds that his petition was barred by the applicable statute of 21 limitations. (Doc. Nos. 38, 39.) The court found that reasonable jurists would not find the court’s 22 determination that the petition should be denied debatable or wrong and declined to issue a 23 certificate of appealability. (Doc. No. 38 at 4–5.) 24 On January 29, 2024, petitioner filed a motion to vacate the judgment in this case. (Doc. 25 No. 40.) After granting various extensions to the briefing schedule and objections period (Doc. 26 Nos. 45, 47, 49, 55, 56), the court denied petitioner’s motion on February 21, 2025, finding that 27 petitioner’s motion to vacate the judgment was untimely and that petitioner had failed to establish 28 that his mental illness had made it impossible for him to file a federal habeas petition within the 1 | applicable limitations period. (Doc. No. 59 at 3.) On March 17, 2025, petitioner timely filed a 2 | notice of appeal of this court’s order denying his motion to vacate the judgment. (Doc. No. 60.) 3 On April 24, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded this case to the district 4 | court “for the limited purpose of granting or denying a certificate of appealability at the court’s 5 | earliest convenience.” (Doc. No. 63 at 1) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); 6 | United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997)). A certificate of appealability may 7 | issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial 8 | ofa constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The court must either issue a certificate of 9 | appealability indicating which issues satisfy the required showing or must state the reasons why 10 | such acertificate should not issue. Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). 11 Where, as here, the court has denied relief on procedural grounds without reaching the 12 | underlying constitutional claims, the court should issue a certificate of appealability if “jurists of 13 | reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a 14 | constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was 15 || correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). As noted, the 16 | court declined to issue a certificate of appealability when it dismissed petitioner’s habeas petition 17 | on September 19, 2022, finding that reasonable jurists would not find the court’s determination 18 | that the petition should be denied debatable or wrong. (Doc. No. 38 at 4-5.) After considering 19 | petitioner’s motion to vacate the judgment and his subsequently filed objections, the court again 20 | finds that reasonable jurists would not find it debatable that this court was correct in its 21 | procedural ruling. Accordingly, the court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability 22 | referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 2253. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ April 30, 2025 Da A. 2, axel 25 DALE A. DROZD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27 28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28