Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01645/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01645-5/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

RONALD SPARKS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

P. SCHULTZ, )

)

Respondent. )

)

____________________________________)

1:05-CV-1645 AWI TAG HC

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY

(Document #13)

Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On May 17, 2007, the court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations and dismissed the petition because Petitioner had not shown that

28 U.S.C. § 2255 was inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. On May 25,

2007, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal. Although no express request was made for a certificate

of appealability, the notice of appeal is deemed to constitute a request for a certificate. See Fed.

R.App. P. 22(b); United States v. Asrar, 108 F.3d 217, 218 (9 Cir. 1997). th

A prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district

court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). The controlling statute is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which

provides as follows:

Case 1:05-cv-01645-AWI -TAG Document 14 Filed 06/19/07 Page 1 of 3
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

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

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).

When the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the

prisoner's underlying constitutional claim, a certificate of appealability should issue, and an

appeal of the district court's order may be taken, if the petitioner 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. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). 

In general, a certificate of appealability is not required to appeal an order denying a 28

U.S.C. § 2241 petition where: (1) the detention complained of does not arise out of a process

issued by a state court; or (2) it is not a section § 2255 proceeding. Forde v. U.S. Parole

Comm'n, 114 F.3d 878, 879 (9 Cir.1997). However, a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition th

disguised as a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition requires a certificate of appealability. Porter v. Adams,

244 F.3d 1006, 1007 (9 Cir. 2001). th

Here, Petitioner is raising claims that should have been brought in a petition for writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and, as such, a certificate of appealability is

required to appeal. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability in this action. 

Reasonable jurists would not debate this court’s finding that Petitioner had failed to show that his

remedy pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to protect Plaintiff’s rights. 

Case 1:05-cv-01645-AWI -TAG Document 14 Filed 06/19/07 Page 2 of 3
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 3

The inability to file a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the sentencing court under the

AEDPA does not make section 2255 inadequate or ineffective. See Stephens v. Herrera, 464

F.3d 895, 897 (9 Cir. 2006); Lorentsen v. Hood, 223 F.3d 950, 953 (9 Cir. 2000); Moore v. th th

Reno, 185 F.3d 1054, 1055 (9 Cir. 1999) (per curiam). Petitioner has not shown that he is th

actually innocent and has not had an “unobstructed procedural shot” at presenting his actual

innocence claim. Stephens, 464 F.3d at 898; Ivy v. Pontesso, 328 F.3d 1057, 1060 (9 Cir. 2003) th

(as amended).

Accordingly, the court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability in this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 18, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01645-AWI -TAG Document 14 Filed 06/19/07 Page 3 of 3