Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01546/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01546-10/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

ANTHONY LAWS,

Petitioner,

v.

DANIEL PARAMO, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01546-SKO HC

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ISSUE

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

(Doc. 53)

On September 25, 2013, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254; he amended the petition on September 24, 2015. 1 On September 29, 2016, the 

Magistrate Judge entered an order denying the amended petition and declining to issue a certificate 

of appealability. Having appealed this Court’s judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit, Petitioner now moves for a certificate of appealability. Petitioner bases his motion on his 

disagreement with the Court’s decision to deny his petition.

Basis for Issuing or Denying a Certificate of Appealability

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

court's denial of his petition, but may only appeal in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 

537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). The controlling statute in determining whether to issue a certificate of 

appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides:

(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 

 

1

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), both parties consented, in writing, to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate 

Judge to conduct all further proceedings in this case, including the entry of final judgment.

Case 1:13-cv-01546-SKO Document 54 Filed 10/19/16 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

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 issues or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).

If a court denies a habeas 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). Although 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, 537 U.S. at 

338. In this case, 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. 

Conclusion and Order

The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 19, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01546-SKO Document 54 Filed 10/19/16 Page 2 of 2