Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00733/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00733-12/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY JOSEPH THOMAS, No. 2:04-cv-00733-MCE-DAD P

Petitioner, 

vs. ORDER

A. K. SCRIBNER, Warden, et al.,

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has timely filed a notice of appeal of this

court's February 20, 2008 denial of his application for a writ of habeas corpus. Before petitioner

can appeal this decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R.

App. P. 22(b).

A certificate of appealability may issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the applicant has

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The

certificate of appealability must “indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy” the requirement. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3).

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-00733-MCE -DAD Document 101 Filed 03/14/08 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

 Except for the requirement that appealable issues be specifically identified, the standard 1

for issuance of a certificate of appealability is the same as the standard that applied to issuance of

a certificate of probable cause. Jennings, at 1010.

2

A certificate of appealability should be granted for any issue that petitioner can

demonstrate is “‘debatable among jurists of reason,’” could be resolved differently by a different

court, or is “‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Jennings v. Woodford,

290 F.3d 1006, 1010 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)).

1

Petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right in the

following issues presented in the instant petition: (1) whether the trial court violated his rights

under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments when it removed him from the courtroom during

his trial; (2) whether he received ineffective assistance of counsel; and (3) whether the prosecutor

committed misconduct.

Petitioner has also filed a request to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. Petitioner was

permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in his habeas petition in this court. Fed. R. App. P.

24(a)(3) provides that a party who was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in the district

court action may also proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, subject to certain exceptions not

applicable here. Accordingly, petitioner’s request to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis will be

denied as unnecessary. 

Petitioner has filed numerous requests to “reopen” this case and has also filed several

recent habeas petitions in this action. Petitioner is advised that he is now proceeding with an

appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and that his case in this court

is now closed. Any further requests or motions should be filed in the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals and not in this court. Any further documents filed in this action will be disregarded. 

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-00733-MCE -DAD Document 101 Filed 03/14/08 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

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. A certificate of appealability is issued in the present action; and

2. Petitioner’s March 5, 2007 request to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is denied as

unnecessary.

Dated: March 13, 2008

________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00733-MCE -DAD Document 101 Filed 03/14/08 Page 3 of 3