Opinion
No. 04 C 2884.
July 13, 2004
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter comes before the court on Brian Knade's ("Knade") application for a certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). For the reasons set forth below, the application is denied.
BACKGROUND
Brian Knade is currently incarcerated at the Illinois River Correctional Center in Canton, Illinois. On June 16, 2004, we dismissed Knade's petition for a writ of habeas corpus as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)'s one-year limitations period. Knade now wishes to appeal that decision, but appellate proceedings cannot commence without a certificate of appealability either from this court or from a circuit judge of the Court of Appeals. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed.R.App.Proc. 22(b).
DISCUSSION
A court may issue a certificate of appealability for a decision dismissing a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus "only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). In order to make this showing, the applicant must demonstrate "that reasonable jurists could debate whether the challenges in his habeas petition should have been resolved differently or that his petition adequately shows a sufficient chance of the denial of a constitutional right that he deserves encouragement to proceed further." Rutledge v. U.S., 230 F.3d 1041, 1047 (7th Cir. 2000). However, when a district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds, without reaching the prisoner's underlying constitutional claim, the court will not issue a certificate of appealability unless the petitioner demonstrates both "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, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Because each of these requirements is a component of a threshold inquiry, a court can dispose of an application if it determines that there is no reasonable debate as to either the constitutional or procedural question. Id. at 485.Knade's only argument contending that his petition should not have been dismissed as time-barred is that as a layman with little knowledge of the law he should not be held to the same standards as an attorney. We considered this issue in our June 16, 2004, dismissal of Knade's habeas petition, holding this justification insufficient to excuse Knade's tardy filing. Because we do not believe that a reasonable jurist would disagree with this procedural ruling, we need not reach Knade's allegations of constitutional violations and find that his present application does not merit certification to the appellate court under the Slack standard.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Knade's application for a certificate of appealability is denied.