Wendy Downs v. Jeff Macomber, Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al.

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) states that a federal habeas petitioner seeking to appeal a district court’s denial of habeas relief must obtain a certificate of appealability (“COA”). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). AEDPA also establishes a 1-year statute of limitations for a state prisoner to file a federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). The threshold jurisdictional inquiry for the Court of Appeals, when a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed on procedural grounds, requires an applicant to 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, 529 U.S. 473, 474 (2000); Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 141 (2012). The COVID-19 pandemic had a direct impact in this case. This petition presents the following questions^

1. Was the Ninth Circuit too demanding under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) in assessing the district court’s disposition of the habeas petition? (a) Whether reasonable jurists could debate whether the petition for a writ of habeas corpus was timely under 28 U.S.C. §2244(d). (b) Whether reasonable jurists could debate whether the petition for a writ of habeas corpus states a valid claim of the denial of at least one constitutional right.

2. Whether the petition for a writ of habeas corpus should be granted.