ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, District Judge.

Petitioner Keith E. Woodhouse filed the instant pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On January 22, 2019, the Court dismissed the petition for failure to exhaust state court remedies. Dkt. 13. On February 11, 2019, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal. Dkt. 15. The Court construes Petitioner's notice of appeal as an application for a certificate of appealability ("COA"). See United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997); 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3).

In an Order dated February 15, 2019, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the district court "for the limited purpose of granting or denying a [COA] at the court's earliest convenience." Dkt. 17 at 1.

An appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless the petitioner first obtains a COA. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Section 2253(c)(1) applies to an appeal of a final order entered on a procedural question antecedent to the merits, as here. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483 (2000).

"Determining whether a COA should issue where the petition was dismissed on procedural grounds has two components, one directed at the underlying constitutional claims and one directed at the district court's procedural holding." Id. at 484-85. "When the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner's underlying constitutional claim, a COA should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, 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." Id. at 484. As each of these components is a "threshold inquiry," the federal court "may find that it can dispose of the application in a fair and prompt manner if it proceeds first to resolve the issue whose answer is more apparent from the record and arguments." Id. at 485. Supreme Court jurisprudence "allows and encourages" federal courts to first resolve the procedural issue, as was done here. See id.

The petition was dismissed for failure to exhaust state court remedies. See Dkt. 13 at 9 (citing Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 510 (1982)). The dismissal was without prejudice to Petitioner's returning to federal court after exhausting his state court remedies. See id. Because jurists of reason would not find the Court's conclusion debatable or wrong, the motion for a COA is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.