Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05370/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05370-3/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

HAROLD WILLIAM LAWLEY, SR., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

GAIL LEWIS, WARDEN, )

)

Respondent. )

)

____________________________________)

1: 03- CV - 5370 AWI WMW HC

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY

ORDER REQUESTING CLERK OF

THE COURT SERVE A COPY OF

THIS ORDER ON THE NINTH

CIRCUIT

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 December 6, 2005, the court adopted the

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

December 6, 2005, the Clerk of the Court entered judgment. On February 27, 2007, Petitioner

filed a motion to vacate judgment. On June 14, 2007, the court denied Petitioner’s motion. 

On July 5, 2007, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal. On August 6, 2007, the Ninth Circuit

requested this court either grant or deny a certificate of appealability. 

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:

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

Case 1:03-cv-05370-AWI-WMW Document 31 Filed 08/14/07 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 cannot attack his current conviction by contending that a

prior conviction, used to enhance his sentence, was unconstitutional. Title 28 U.S.C. § 2254

does not provide a remedy when a state prisoner challenges a current sentence on the ground that

it was enhanced based on an allegedly unconstitutional prior conviction for which the petitioner

is no longer in custody. Lackawanna County Dist. Atty. v. Cross, 532 U.S. 394, 403-04 (2001). 

Reasonable jurists would not disagree with this court’s finding that, even assuming Petitioner

never received Respondent’s answer, Petitioner was not prejudiced.

Accordingly, the court hereby ORDERS that a certificate of appealability SHALL NOT

BE ISSUED. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to serve a copy of this order on the Ninth

Circuit.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 10, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05370-AWI-WMW Document 31 Filed 08/14/07 Page 2 of 2