Salcido v. Johnson

Background

Martin Seanz Salcido filed a petition without a lawyer seeking habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On June 26, 2020, the court dismissed the petition because it was a second petition following an earlier habeas case, and Salcido had not obtained authorization from the Ninth Circuit to file it.

Salcido later filed a notice of appeal. The court treated that notice as an application for a certificate of appealability, which is required before appealing a final order in a habeas proceeding.

Court’s Analysis

Because the petition had been dismissed on a procedural ground without reaching the underlying constitutional claims, the court applied the standard for a certificate of appealability in a procedurally dismissed habeas case. A certificate could issue only if reasonable judges could debate both whether the petition stated a valid constitutional claim and whether the district court correctly applied the procedural rule. The court resolved the procedural issue first.

The court explained that 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) requires a petitioner to obtain permission from the federal court of appeals before filing a second or successive habeas petition. Salcido had not obtained that permission, and he did not deny having a prior habeas case. The court concluded that reasonable judges would not find its procedural ruling debatable or wrong.

Disposition

Judge Yvonne Rogers denied the request for a certificate of appealability. The clerk was ordered to serve the order on Salcido and the Ninth Circuit.