Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05371/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05371-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN R. GHOLAR, CASE NO. CV-F-03-5371 AWI DLB HC

Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

REQUEST TO BROADEN CERTIFICATE

vs. OF APPEALABILITY, DENYING

MOTION FOR STAY, AND DENYING 

ALLEN K. SCRIBNER, WARDEN, MOTION FOR COUNSEL

Respondent. [Docs. #48, #49, #50, #51]

 /

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

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On May 4, 2005, the Court denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus and judgment was

entered in favor of Respondent. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal on May 18, 2005, and a request for

a certificate of appealability on May 20, 2005. 

OnMay 25, 2005, the Court granted in part and denied in part Petitioner’s request for a certificate

of appealability. The Court granted petitioner’s request as to Petitioner’s claim that his sentence was

unconstitutionally enhanced by a prior conviction for which there was newly discovered evidence

indicating Petitioner may have been innocent. 

On June 10, 2005, Petitioner filed a request to “Broaden” the Application for Certificate of

Appealability. On June 17, 2005, Petitioner filed a motion to stay the proceedings pursuant to Rule

62(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On July 5, 2005, and July 25, 2005, Petitioner filed

Case 1:03-cv-05371-AWI-DLB Document 53 Filed 08/23/05 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

motions for the appointment of counsel.

After reviewing Petitioner’s request to broaden the certificate of appealability, the Court does

not find that Petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, other than

the issue already certified for appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 2253. 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, 335-36 (2003). If the court

denies a Petitioner’s petition, the court may only issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists of reason

could disagree with the district court's resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could

conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El, 537

U.S. at 327; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). The underlying basis of Petitioner’s other

claims is that no one should have believed the victim. Given the respect that must be given to the trier

of fact's credibility determinations, see Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979), reasonable jurists

would not disagree with the court’s determination on Petitioner’s other claims. Accordingly,

Petitioner’s request to broaden the certificate of appealablity, is DENIED.

Further, Petitioner’s request to stay must be denied. Rule 62(d) provides that “[w]hen an appeal

is taken the appellant by giving a supersedeas bond may obtain a stay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d). “[A] party

making an appeal from the District court is entitled to a stay of a money judgment as a matter of right

if he posts a bond in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d).” American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. V. American

Broadcasting-Paramount Theatres, Inc., 87 S.Ct. 1, 3 (1966) (mem.). Rules 62(d) is inapplicable to the

instant case as no money judgment was entered. In addition, Rule 62 would only postpone Petitioner

having to pay a money judgment, it would not delay an appeal. 

Petitioner appears to be asking the court to stay his petition while he exhausts state remedies on

other claims. While holding a petition containing exhausted claims in abeyance is one option for the

court early in an action,see Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Thomas), 144 F.3d 618, 620 (9th Cir.

1998), the court has no power to stay the case pending exhaustion here. Judgment has been entered, and

this habeas corpus petition is over. Thus, there is no active case for the court to hold in abeyance. If

Petitioner desires the appeal to be stayed, Petitioner must make his request to the Ninth Circuit.

Accordingly, Petitioner’s request for a stay must be DENIED. 

Case 1:03-cv-05371-AWI-DLB Document 53 Filed 08/23/05 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

1

 Petitioner is informed that to file something with the Ninth Circuit, Petitioner must file it at the address for the

Ninth Circuit, not this court. It is unnecessary for Petitioner to serve this court with courtesy copies of documents he files

with the Ninth Circuit.

3

Finally, Petitioner has filed a request for counsel addressed to both this court and the Ninth

Circuit. A review of both motions reveals that Petitioner is requesting help in prosecuting his appeal in

the Ninth Circuit. This Court does not appoint counsel for the purposes of appeal. Petitioner should

file a motion in the Ninth Circuit if he desires counsel on appeal.1 Thus, Petitioners’ motions for

counsel are DENIED without prejudice to re-filing these motions at the Ninth Circuit. 

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that:

1. Petitioner’s request to broaden the certificate of appealablity is DENIED;

2. Petitioner’s motion to stay is DENIED; and

3. Petitioner’s motions for the appoint of counsel are DENIED without prejudice to Petitioner refiling these motions at the Ninth Circuit.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 22, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05371-AWI-DLB Document 53 Filed 08/23/05 Page 3 of 3