Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00014/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00014-6/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BARRY S. JAMESON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

JEANNE WOODFORD, Director, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:06-CV-00014 AWI NEW (DLB) HC 

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

ORDER FINDING CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY IS NOT NECESSARY 

[Doc. #26]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In his petition, Petitioner contended that the Board of Prison Terms

(“BOP”)’s denial of parole violated Petitioner’s constitutional rights.

On May 30, 2007, the undersigned issued an order denying the petition. On June 26, 2007,

the undersigned declined to issue a certificate of appealability. On July 3, 2007, Petitioner filed a

motion for reconsideration of the order denying a certificate of appealability.

Pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

the court may relieve a party or a party’s legal representative from a final judgment, 

order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or

excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not 

have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud 

(whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other 

misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been 

satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been

Case 1:06-cv-00014-AWI -LJO Document 28 Filed 07/26/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should 

have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the 

operation of the judgment.

A review of the law indicates that Petitioner is correct. A certificate of appealability

unnecessary in an action brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 if the petition arises out of an

administrative process rather than a state conviction. See Rosas v. Nielsen, 428 F.3d 1229 (9 Cir. th

2005) (per curiam); White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002 (9 Cir.2004). In Rosas v. Nielsen, 428 F.3d th

1229 (9 Cir. 2005), the Ninth Circuit explained: th

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 (9th Cir.2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 991, 125 S.Ct. 503, 160 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. 

Rosas, 428 F.3d at 1231. In this case, Petitioner challenges the BOP’s denial of parole. Any

argument that a certificate of appealability is required to appeal this case is foreclosed by Rosas v.

Nielsen, 428 F.3d 1229 (9 Cir. 2005) (per curiam). Thus, no certificate of appealability is th

necessary.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is

GRANTED. No certificate of appealability is necessary to appeal in this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 26, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00014-AWI -LJO Document 28 Filed 07/26/07 Page 2 of 2