Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05931/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05931-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALEX MAESE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

A. A. LAMARQUE, WARDEN, )

)

Respondent. )

)

____________________________________)

CV F 02-5931 AWI WMW HC

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

(Document #34)

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, is proceeding with a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On August 4, 2004, the court adopted the

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations and denied the habeas corpus petition. On

August 5, 2004, the Clerk of the Court entered judgment. On December 29, 2004, Petitioner

filed a motion to reinstate his petition. On February 15, 2005, the court denied Petitioner’s

motion to reinstate. On March 7, 2005, Petitioner filed a motion for forms and a notice of

appeal. On March 22, 2005, the court resolved Petitioner’s motion for forms and declined to

issue a certificate of appealability.

On April 12, 2005, Petitioner field a motion for a certificate of appealability. Petitioner

requests the court consider issuing a certificate of appealability in light of Duran v. Castro, 227 F.

Supp. 2d 1121 (E.D. Cal. 2002). 

The controlling statute for certificates of appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which

provides as follows:

(a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 before a district

Case 1:02-cv-05931-AWI-WMW Document 40 Filed 04/21/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the court of appeals for the

circuit in which the proceeding is held.

 (b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding to test the validity

of a warrant to remove to another district or place for commitment or trial a person

charged with a criminal offense against the United States, or to test the validity of such

person's detention pending removal proceedings.

 (c)(1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an appeal may

not be taken to the court of appeals from–

 (A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of

arises out of process issued by a State court; or

 (B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.

 (2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the applicant has

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

 (3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which specific issue

or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).

If the court denies habeas corpus petition, the court may only issue a certificate of appealability

“if jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's resolution of his constitutional claims

or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to

proceed further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). that 

In the present case, the court finds that reasonable jurists would not disagree with the

court’s determination that Petitioner has failed to show that the state court’s adjudication of

Petitioner’s claims was contrary to clearly established federal law or unreasonable. Petitioner’s

cite to Duran does not require a certificate of appealability to be issued. The holding in Duran is

not binding authority. The Supreme Court’s more recent decisions in Ewing v. California, 538

U.S. 11 (2003) and Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003), which found that California’s three

strikes law does not raise constitutional concerns, is binding on this court.

Accordingly, the court hereby ORDERS that Petitioner’s motion for a certificate of

appealability is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 20, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05931-AWI-WMW Document 40 Filed 04/21/05 Page 2 of 2