Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05684/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05684-0/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

JUANARD ROBINSON, )

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

T. SCHWARTZ, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:03-cv-05684-TAG HC 

ORDER DENYING ISSUANCE OF A

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the

parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On April 9, 2004, Petitioner filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 30). On

August 9, 2004, the Court denied Petitioner's motion because deciding Petitioner’s summary

judgment motion would be essentially equivalent to deciding Petitioner's habeas petition on the

merits, and also because Petitioner failed to comply with Local Rule 56-260(a). (Doc. 32). 

On August 26, 2004, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal from the August 9, 2004, order

denying his motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 33). On September 28, 2004, the Court

refused to issue Petitioner a certificate of appealability. (Doc. 35). Subsequently, Petitioner

sought a certificate of appealability in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which

Case 1:03-cv-05684-TAG Document 58 Filed 05/03/05 Page 1 of 4
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

ordered the appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on November 29, 2004. (Doc. 46). In its

order, the Court of Appeals specifically indicated that the order appealed from was not a final

order. (Id.). Petitioner has now filed a second notice of appeal from that same order of August

9, 2004, denying his motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 57, p. 1). Petitioner asserts in his

notice of appeal that, contrary to the decision of this Court and the Ninth Circuit, rulings on

motions for summary judgment are indeed final and appealable. (Id. at pp. 2-4). 

LEGAL STANDARD FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 

“If no express request for a certificate is filed, the notice of appeal constitutes a request

addressed to the judges of the court of appeals.” FED. R. APP. P. 22(b)(3). A state 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, 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:

(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).

Therefore, final orders issued by a federal district court in habeas corpus proceedings are

reviewable by the circuit court of appeals. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(a). In order to have final orders

reviewed, Petitioner must obtain a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). The Court

Case 1:03-cv-05684-TAG Document 58 Filed 05/03/05 Page 2 of 4
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

will issue a certificate of appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, a 

petitioner must establish that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree

that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented

were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 120 S.Ct.

1595, 1603-04 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)). 

The filing of a notice of appeal generally divests the district court of jurisdiction to

determine the "substantial rights" at issue in an action during the pendency of the appeal. Griggs

v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (per curiam); Bermudez v. Duenas,

936 F.2d 1064, 1068 (9th Cir. 1991); Pyrodyne Corp. v. Pyrotronics Corp., 847 F.2d 1398, 1403

(9th Cir. 1988); Gould v. Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, 790 F.2d 769, 772 (9th

Cir. 1986); Scott v. Younger, 739 F.2d 1464, 1466 (9th Cir. 1984); Davis v. United States, 667

F.2d 822, 824 (9th Cir. 1982). An exception to this rule exists where a deficiency in the notice of

appeal "is clear to the district court." Ruby v. Secretary of the United States Navy, 365 F.2d 385,

389 (9th Cir. 1966). Only in such a case can the district court proceed with the case "knowing

that it has not been deprived of jurisdiction." Id. 

DISCUSSION

Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability must be denied once again because

the denial of a summary judgment motion is an interlocutory order that cannot be appealed before

entry of final judgment. E.g., Hopkins v. City of Sierra Vista, 931 F.2d 524, 529 (9th Cir. 1991);

Kraus v. County of Pierce, 793 F.2d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir. 1986); see, e.g., Padfield v. AIG Life

Ins. Co., 290 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir. 2002); Easter v. American West Financial, 381 F.3d 948

(9th Cir. 2004). Petitioner’s authorities, which deal with the appealability of an order either 

granting a summary judgment motion or resolving all disputes as to a particular issue or party,

are not to the contrary. Denying Petitioner’s motion for summary judgment does not resolve

anything in this habeas case. All issues remain pending. Accordingly, the order is not

appealable. Chacon v. Babcock, 640 F.2d 221 (9th Cir. 1981) [order is not appalable unless it 

///

Case 1:03-cv-05684-TAG Document 58 Filed 05/03/05 Page 3 of 4
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

4

disposes of all claims as to all parties); Hopkins v. City of Sierra Vista, 931 F.2d 524 (denial of

summary judgment motion is interlocutory and non-appealable). 

As mentioned, both this Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit have

previously rejected Petitioner’s appeal on this same basis. Since the last time the Court denied

Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability from this non-appealable order, nothing has

changed, legally or factually, that would affect the Court’s analysis of this issue. 

Finally, it bears mentioning that Petitioner’s repeated appeals of this issue, in essence

seeking expedited treatment of his habeas petition, have caused the Court to be divested of

jurisdiction to act on his petition until each appeal is resolved and the matter is remanded to this

Court. In this manner, Petitioner’s repeated filings have delayed, rather than hastened, the day

when the Court is able to reach the merits of his petition, because the Court lacks jurisdiction to

consider this matter while issues are on appeal. The Court will reach the merits of Petitioner’s

habeas petition in due course.

ORDER

In the present case, the Court finds that Petitioner has not made the required substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Accordingly, the Court

hereby DENIES Petitioner’s request for issuance of a certificate of appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 2, 2005 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05684-TAG Document 58 Filed 05/03/05 Page 4 of 4