Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05339/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05339-1/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES E. PORTER, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

JOE MCGRATH, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:03-cv-05339-TAG HC 

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY (Doc. 21)

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302. 

On March 23, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued an order denying the petition for writ of

habeas corpus on its merits. (Doc. 18). Judgment was entered on the same date. (Doc. 19). On

May 3, 2006, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal of the district court's order. (Doc. 21). Although

no express request was made for a certificate of appealability in the notice of appeal, Petitioner

had previously sent a letter, received by the Court on April 25, 2006, requesting issuance of a

certificate of appealability. (Doc. 22). Moreover, the notice of appeal itself shall be deemed to

constitute such 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,

Case 1:03-cv-05339-TAG Document 23 Filed 06/12/06 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

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 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

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, 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

 ///

///

Case 1:03-cv-05339-TAG Document 23 Filed 06/12/06 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

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

Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability (Doc. 21), is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 9, 2006 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:03-cv-05339-TAG Document 23 Filed 06/12/06 Page 3 of 3