Pringle

Pringle v. DL RUNNELS

Good Law
767 F. Supp. 2d 1142·2011 WL 291181·2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7514
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaJanuary 25, 2011Case 07cv1960-LAB (POR)California3,632 words

Opinion

Opinion

Burns, J.

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

David Pringle, a prisoner represented by appointed counsel, filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court on October 9, 2007. On June 22, 2010, Magistrate Judge Louisa Porter issued her report and recommendation (the “R & R”) recommending that Pringle's petition for habeas corpus be denied. After Pringle filed objections to the R & R, the Court on January 13, 2011 issued an order modifying the R & R, adopting it, and denying the writ.

Pringle now appeals, and petitions for a certificate of appealability (COA). He agrees his sole claim is brought under a theory of actual innocence under Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 , 113 S.Ct. 853 , 122 L.Ed.2d 203 (1993), but disagrees with the Court’s holding that his petition was time-barred, that he did not demonstrate actual innocence, or that he could not show actual innocence even if given an evidentiary hearing.

Before the Court can issue a COA, Pringle “must demonstrate that the issues are debatable among jurists of reason; that a court could resolve the issues in a different manner; or that the questions are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Lambright v.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.