Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01012/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01012-6/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

LARRY P. CONTERO,

Petitioner,

v.

JEANNE S. WOODFORD,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 05-1012 AWI DLB HC

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND

DENYING PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AS

UNNECESSARY

[Docs. 19, 22]

On February 27, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations

recommending that the instant petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, be denied. (Court

Doc. 8.) Petitioner filed objections on March 10, 2006. (Court Doc. 9.) On April 12, 2006, the

undersigned adopted the Findings and Recommendations in full. (Court Doc. 10.) 

On April 20, 2006, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal. On June 15, 2006, the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order directing this Court to either grant or deny a certificate

of appealability. (Court Doc. 18.)

On June 20, 2006, the undersigned denied Petitioner’s request for a certificate of

appealability. (Court Doc. 19.) 

On June 28, 2006, Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the order denying his

request for a certificate of appealability. (Court Doc. 22.) In his motion, Petitioner requests that

the Court order the certificate of appealability unnecessary pursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s

opinions in Rosas v. Nielsen, 428 F.3d 1229 (9 Cir. 2005) and White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002 th

Case 1:05-cv-01012-AWI-DLB Document 25 Filed 07/31/06 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

(9 Cir. 2004). th

Petitioner appears to be correct. In Rosas v. Nielsen, 428 F.3d 1229, 1231, the Ninth

Circuit stated:

A habeas petitioner must secure a certificate of appealability where ‘the

detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court.’ 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(A). The Ninth Circuit construed this language in White v. Lambert,

370 F.3d 1002 (9 Cir. 2004), cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 125 S.Ct. 503, 160 th

L.Ed.2d 379 (2005), to hold that a certificate of appealability ‘is not required

when a state prisoner challenges an administrative decision regarding the

execution of his sentence.’ Id. at 1010. Thus, the district court looks at who made

‘the detention decision complained of by the state prisoner,’ an administrative

body or judicial one, in determining whether a certificate of appealability is

required.’ Id.

In this case, as explained in the Findings and Recommendations of February 27, 2006,

Petitioner challenged the denial of worktime credits as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. 

As such, Petitioner did not challenge the process issued by the State Court, but rather the

California Department of Corrections decision to deny him worktime credits based on California

law. 

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is GRANTED; and

2. The certificate of appealability is DENIED as UNNECESSARY, pursuant to

Ninth Circuit authority; and

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the United States

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 29, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01012-AWI-DLB Document 25 Filed 07/31/06 Page 2 of 2