Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00170/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00170-5/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLINTON J. FORRISTER, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

JEANNE WOODFORD, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05-cv-00170-LJO WMW HC

ORDER DECLINING ISSUANCE OF

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

[Doc. 30]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On March 15, 2010, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals

for the Ninth Circuit. A certificate of appealability must issue for the matter to be properly heard on

appeal, and the Court shall review the matter for that limited purpose. 

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

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

Cockrell, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039 (2003). The controlling statute in determining whether to issue a

certificate of appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides as follows:

///

///

U.S. District Court

E. D. California 1

Case 1:05-cv-00170-LJO -GSA Document 32 Filed 05/26/10 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

 (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).

If a court denies a petitioner’s 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, 123 S.Ct. at 1034; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). While the

petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must demonstrate “something more than

the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on his . . . part.” Miller-El, 123 S.Ct. at

1040.

On March 15, 2007, this Court adopted the finding and recommendations of the magistrate

judge, and dismissed the petition with prejudice. (Court Doc. 19.) The Court based its dismissal on

the expiration of the one year statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). (Id. at 3-4.)

According to the calculations of the Court, the statute of limitations expired on February 19, 2004

and the petition was filed nearly a year later on February 8, 2005. (Id.) Petitioner filed a motion for

reconsideration, claiming the delay in filing was based on his attorney’s demand for additional

payment for continued representation and the fact he had to rely on assistance from jailhouse

lawyers. (Court Doc. 22.) This Court found such claims unpersuasive as to account for his delay in

filing after the expiration of the statute of limitations and denied the motion for reconsideration on

U.S. District Court

E. D. California 2

Case 1:05-cv-00170-LJO -GSA Document 32 Filed 05/26/10 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

January 3, 2008. (Court Doc. 25.)

In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s

determination that Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or

deserving of encouragement to proceed further. Petitioner has not made the required substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, the Court hereby DECLINES issuance

of a certificate of appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 25, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

U.S. District Court

E. D. California 3

Case 1:05-cv-00170-LJO -GSA Document 32 Filed 05/26/10 Page 3 of 3