Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00777/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00777-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

ANTOINE GOMIS, )

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

U.S. ATTORNEY ALBERTO )

R. GONZALEZ, et al., )

)

)

Respondents. )

)

 )

1:07-cv- 00777-LJO-TAG HC 

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 4)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS (Doc. 1)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ENTER JUDGMENT

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

On May 25, 2007, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1).

On June 4, 2007, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case filed a Findings and

Recommendation recommending the petition be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. 4). 

This Findings and Recommendation was served on all parties and contained notice that any

objections were to be filed within twenty days from the date of service of that order. To date, the

parties have not filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendation. On June 28, 2007,

Petitioner filed his notice of appeal from the Court’s order. (Doc. 8). 

Case 1:07-cv-00777-LJO-TAG Document 11 Filed 07/24/07 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

I. Adoption of Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted

a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that

the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation is supported by the record and proper

analysis. 

II. Denial of a Certificate of Appealability.

On June 28, 2007, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal. (Doc. 8). Although no express

request was made for a certificate of appealability, the notice of appeal shall be deemed to

constitute a request for a certificate. See United States v. Asrar, 108 F.3d 217, 218 (9th Cir.

1997); Fed. R.App. P. 22(b). The requirement that a petitioner seek a certificate of appealability

is a gate-keeping mechanism that protects the Court of Appeals from having to devote resources

to frivolous issues, while at the same time affording petitioners an opportunity to persuade the

Court that, through full briefing and argument, the potential merit of claims may appear. 

Lambright v. Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022, 1025 (9th Cir. 2000). However, a state 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, 335-336 (2003). The controlling statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2253, provides as follows:

(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 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).

Accordingly, final orders issued by a federal district court in habeas corpus proceedings

are reviewable by the circuit court of appeals, and, in order to have final orders reviewed, a

Case 1:07-cv-00777-LJO-TAG Document 11 Filed 07/24/07 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

petitioner must obtain a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253. This Court will issue a

certificate of appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner must

establish that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition

should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to

deserve encouragement to proceed further’.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)

(quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)).

In the present case, the Court finds that Petitioner has not made the required substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of

appealability. Reasonable jurists would not find it debatable that Petitioner has not shown an

entitlement to federal habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that

Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability is DENIED. 

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation, filed June 4, 2007 (Doc. 4), is ADOPTED IN

FULL;

2. This petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1), is DISMISSED for lack of

jurisdiction; 

3. Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability is DENIED; and,

4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to ENTER JUDGMENT and close the file. 

This order terminates the action in its entirety. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 23, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00777-LJO-TAG Document 11 Filed 07/24/07 Page 3 of 3