Soloman v. Black

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: March 5, 2024
• Docket: 3:23-cv-04799
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 NEBIYU SOLOMAN, Case No. 23-cv-04799-JSC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF 9 v. APPEALABILITY

10 JASON BLACK, Defendant. 11

12 Petitioner is a detainee at Atascadero State Hospital proceeding without representation by a 13 lawyer. He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 6.) The 14 Court dismissed the petition without prejudice to refiling after state court remedies are exhausted. 15 (ECF No. 14.) Petitioner appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals ordered this Court to 16 rule on whether a certificate of appealability (“COA”) should be issued under 28 U.S.C. § 17 2253(c)(1)(A). (ECF No. 18.) 18 “Determining whether a COA should issue where the petition was dismissed on procedural 19 grounds has two components, one directed at the underlying constitutional claims and one directed 20 at the district court’s procedural holding.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). 21 When, as here, “the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching 22 the prisoner’s underlying constitutional claim, a COA should issue when the prisoner shows, at 23 least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the 24 denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the 25 district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Id. at 484. As each of these components is a 26 “threshold inquiry,” the federal court “may find that it can dispose of the application in a fair and 27 prompt manner if it proceeds first to resolve the issue whose answer is more apparent from the 1 courts to first resolve the procedural issue. Id. 2 Jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling that Plaintiff did not exhaust his 3 claims debatable or wrong. As explained in the dismissal order, it is clear from the face of the 4 || petition that Petitioner did not exhaust his claims prior to filing the instant petition because he 5 indicated he did not file any appeals or other petition, application, or motion in the state appellate 6 courts. (ECF No. 14 at 3:11-16 (citing ECF No. 6 at 2-3, 6).) Moreover, Petitioner’s proffered 7 || reasons for not pursuing appellate remedies did not excuse his exhaustion obligation because they 8 did not constitute “extremely unusual” circumstances or render the state appellate process 9 ineffective or unavailable. (Ud. at 3:20-4:10 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(B)G)-Gi); Edelbacher 10 || v. Calderon, 160 F.3d 582, 585 (9th Cir. 1998).) Consequently, no jurists of reason would find 11 debatable whether the Court was correct in concluding the petition must be dismissed without 12 prejudice for lack of exhaustion. In light of this conclusion, under Slack, 529 U.S. at 485, the 5 13 Court need not reach the issue of whether jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the S 14 || petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 3 15 Accordingly, the Court concludes no certificate of appealability is warranted. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 17_ || Dated: March 5, 2024 18 19 ne JAQQUELINE SCOTT CORL 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28