Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02150/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02150-2/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 - 05cv2150 J (CAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH WILLIAMS,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 05cv2150-J (CAB)

ORDER: 

(1) DENYING MOTION FOR

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY [DOC. NO.

48];

(2) DENYING REQUEST FOR

LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA

PAUPERIS [DOC. NO. 49].

v.

C.M. HARRISON, Warden,

Respondent.

On March 28, 2007, this Court issued an Order adopting Magistrate Judge Cathy

Ann Bencivengo’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) denying Petitioner Keith

Williams’ (“Petitioner”) Renewed Motion to Amend Petition. [Doc. No. 45.] Petitioner

filed a Notice of Appeal and Motion for a Certificate of Appealability (“COA”). [Doc.

Nos. 47, 48.] Petitioner also filed a request for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. [Doc.

No. 49.] For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s Motion for a

COA and DENIES Petitioner’s request for leave to appeal in forma pauperis.

Legal Standard

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-

132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996) (“AEDPA”), a COA from a circuit justice or district court judge

is necessary in order to appeal the “final order in a habeas proceeding in which the

Case 3:05-cv-02150-W-KSC Document 53 Filed 05/03/07 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 - 05cv2150 J (CAB)

detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State Court.” See 28 U.S.C. §

2253(c)(1)(A) (emphasis added); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1269-70 (9th Cir.

1997) (holding that district courts retain authority to issue a COA under the AEDPA). In

deciding whether to grant a COA, a court must either indicate the specific issues supporting

a certificate or state reasons why a certificate is not warranted. See Asrar, 116 F.3d at

1270. 

Discussion

The Court denied Petitioner’s Renewed Motion to Amend Petition because the new

claims he sought to assert were time-barred. (See Order Denying Pet’r’s Renewed Mot. to

Amend at 11.) Petitioner now seeks a COA from this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253

in order to pursue an appeal of the Order denying his motion to amend the Petition. [Doc.

No. 48.]

The Court must first determine whether Petitioner has presented a final order to

appeal. A COA may be issued only after the final order in a habeas proceeding is rendered. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 2253. A final order is “one which ends the litigation on the merits and

leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” Catlin v. United States, 324

U.S. 229, 233 (1945); United States v. Ray, 375 F.3d 980, 985 (9th Cir. 2004). In the Ninth

Circuit, the order of a district court denying a party leave to amend his pleading is not

considered an appealable final order. See Bradshaw v. Zoological Soc’y of San Diego, 662

F.2d 1301, 1304 (9th Cir. 1981); see also 15A Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice

and Procedure § 3914.1 (3d ed. 1998) (stating that “[o]rders granting or denying

amendment of the pleadings . . . are not final”). In general, orders denying amendment of

the pleadings “contemplate further proceedings in the district court,” and “review is

available after the final judgment, into which they merge.” Bradshaw, 662 F.2d at 1304.

Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the Court’s Order denying his Renewed

Motion to Amend “end[ed] the litigation on the merits.” See Catlin, 324 U.S. at 233. The

Court denied Petitioner’s motion to amend without reaching the merits of his original

Petition, which is still pending. Specifically, the Court’s Order denying Petitioner’s motion

Case 3:05-cv-02150-W-KSC Document 53 Filed 05/03/07 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 - 05cv2150 J (CAB)

to amend contemplates further proceedings because it ordered the action “to proceed with

the claims stated in the original Petition.” (See Order Denying Pet’r’s Renewed Mot. to

Amend at 11.) The Court thus has not ordered a final disposition of the Petition. 

Accordingly, the Order denying Petitioner’s motion to amend is not a final, appealable

order for purposes of issuing a COA under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Because Petitioner’s Motion

for a COA is premature, the Court (1) DENIES Petitioner’s Motion for a COA [Doc. No.

48]; and (2) DENIES Petitioner’s request for leave to appeal in forma pauperis [Doc. No.

49].

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 3, 2007

HON. NAPOLEON A. JONES, JR.

United States District Judge

cc: Magistrate Judge Bencivengo

All Parties

Case 3:05-cv-02150-W-KSC Document 53 Filed 05/03/07 Page 3 of 3