Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_79-cv-01630/USCOURTS-cand-3_79-cv-01630-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAURICE THOMPSON ET AL., on behalf of

themselves and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

JAMES E. TILTON, Acting Secretary,

California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation, and EDDIE YLST, Acting

Warden, San Quentin State Prison,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 79-01630 WHA

ORDER DENYING

APPLICATION FOR

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

Two Death-Row inmates, Scott Pinholster and Luis Maciel, apply pro se for a certificate

of appealability. They challenge the holding that this action is not moot, “despite the failure to

certify a class before entry of the consent decree” (Order re Mot. to Intervene and Req. for

Ruling on Previous Mot. at 2). 

Applicants Pinholster and Maciel are not parties to the instant action. They are only

members of a potential class of plaintiffs. They therefore have no standing to pursue an appeal

pro se. In addition, a request for a certificate of appealability is improper procedurally. Such

certificates may be issued only when the district court has denied a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus or denied a motion to vacate, set aside or correct a sentence. This is not such an action

or motion. 

Applicants cite Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b) and 28 U.S.C. 1292(b). The

former governs how the courts of appeals handle habeas actions. It therefore has no application

Case 3:79-cv-01630-WHA Document 927 Filed 06/05/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

to the instant request, which is made to a district court in a non-habeas action. Section 1292(b)

requires district court judges to certify appeals of interlocutory orders in certain circumstances,

none of which exist here. That section therefore has no applicability either. 

Applicants also cite Arney v. Finney, 967 F.2d 418, 421–22 (10th Cir. 1992). The cited

passage concerned (1) the right of would-be intervenors to appeal denials of their motions to

intervene and (2) the appealability of non-final orders. Although applicants made motions to

intervene that were denied, they do state in their application that they challenge those rulings. 

Furthermore, the order on mootness does not qualify as an appealable non-final order under

Armey because the order is reviewable “on appeal and from a final judgment,” id. at 422. 

Finally applicants cite Bender v. Williamsport Area School District, 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986),

which concerns the duty of reviewing courts sea sponte to correct jurisdictional errors of lower

courts. Bender therefore has no application to the instant application. 

For each of the reasons stated above, the request for a certificate of appealability is

DENIED. THE CLERK SHALL SERVE THIS ORDER ON MACIEL AND PINHOLSTER. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 5, 2006 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:79-cv-01630-WHA Document 927 Filed 06/05/06 Page 2 of 2