Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-00961/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-00961-1/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

KERRY LEMONTE RODGERS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-00-0961 LKK DAD P 

vs.

CHERYL PLILER, Warden,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

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

motion for a certificate of appealability from this court’s order filed September 13, 2005. 

Attached to petitioner’s October 28, 2005 filing is a proof of service in which petitioner declares

under penalty of perjury that he placed the document in the mail in accordance with institutional

procedures on October 10, 2005.

An appeal may not be taken from “the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in

which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court” unless a

certificate of appealability is granted. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). See also Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). 

The final order in this proceeding was filed on September 23, 2003, and a certificate of

appealability was issued on November 5, 2003. On appeal, the denial of petitioner’s application

for a writ of habeas corpus was affirmed by judgment filed April 13, 2005. Petitioner’s new

Case 2:00-cv-00961-LKK-DAD Document 47 Filed 01/12/06 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

2

appeal is from the order denying petitioner’s motion for relief pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Because the September 13, 2005 order is not the final order in

a habeas corpus proceeding, no certificate of appealability is required. If such a certificate were

required, the motion for a certificate of appealability would be denied because petitioner has not

made “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” with regard to his Rule 60(b)

motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s October 28, 2005 motion for a certificate of appealability is

denied; and

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to process petitioner’s notice of appeal filed

October 28, 2005.

DATED: January 12, 2006.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/rodg0961.830d

Case 2:00-cv-00961-LKK-DAD Document 47 Filed 01/12/06 Page 2 of 2