Opinion
Case No. C07-5155RJB.
November 14, 2007
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
This matter comes before the court on Petitioner's Notice of Appeal. Dkt. 24. The Court must consider whether to grant or deny the petitioner a Certificate of Appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3). The Court has reviewed the relevant documents and the record herein.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On September 4, 2007, Magistrate Judge J. Kelley Arnold issued a Report and Recommendation, concluding that Petitioner's habeas claim should be denied because he was not denied a speedy trial, and because Petitioner's due process rights were not violated as a result of the state trial court's implementation of a state court rule. Dkt. 18. On September 19, 2007, Petitioner filed an Objection to the Report and Recommendation. Dkt. 19. After reviewing Petitioner's objections, this Court adopted the Report and Recommendation, and denied Petitioner's writ of habeas corpus. Dkt. 21. Petitioner has now appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
STANDARD FOR GRANTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
The district court should grant an application for a Certificate of Appealability only if the petitioner makes a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3). To obtain a Certificate of Appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), a habeas petitioner must make a showing that reasonable jurists could debate whether, or agree that, the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. Slack v. McDaniel, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1603-04 (2000) ( quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n. 4 (1983)). When the court denies a claim on procedural grounds, the petitioner must show that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling. Slack v. McDaniel, 120 S.Ct. at 1604.
DISCUSSION
This Court denied Petitioner's writ for habeas corpus on two grounds. Dkt. 21. First, the Court held that the Washington State Court of Appeals interpretation of Washington State Criminal Rule 3.3 (CrR 3.3) was not untenable, and did not violate Petitioner's due process rights. The Washington State Court of Appeals held that CrR 3.3 was not ambiguous because it expressly provides that a party who fails to object to the setting of a trial date more than 60 days after arraignment waives his right to later object. Second, this Court held that the setting of Petitioner's trial date 69 days after arraignment did not violate any clearly established federal law. There is nothing in the record that would support a conclusion that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right. There is no clearly established federal law that supports Petitioner's claims.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that petitioner's Motion for Issuance of Certificate of Appealability for Appeal (Dkt. 24) is DENIED.
The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to any party appearing pro se at said party's last known address.