Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00745/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00745-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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 cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARLAND JEFFERS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

PAUL M. SCHULTZ, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

CV F 05 0745 AWI LJO HC

ORDER DECLINING ISSUANCE OF 

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

On August 22, 2005, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal of the August 15, 2005, order

dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In general, a certificate of appealability is not

required to appeal an order denying a section 2241 petition where: (1) the detention complained of

does not arise out of a process issued by a state court; or (2) it is not a section § 2255 proceeding. 

Forde v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 114 F.3d 878, 879 (9th Cir.1997). However, a successive Section

2255 petition disguised as a Section 2241 petition requires a certificate of appealability. Porter v.

Adams, 244 F.3d 1006, 1007 (9th Cir. 2001). The controlling statute in determining whether to

issue a certificate of appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which 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 

Case 1:05-cv-00745-AWI-LJO Document 10 Filed 08/30/05 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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 2

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).

If a 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, 123 S.Ct. at 1034; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). While the

petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must demonstrate “something more than

the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on his . . . part.” Miller-El, 123 S.Ct. at

1040.

In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s

determination that Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or

deserving of encouragement to proceed further. Reasonable jurists would not disagree that

Petitioner cannot raise his claims through 28 U.S.C. § 2241 because Petitioner’s remedy pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2255 is not ineffective to protect Petitioner’s rights. Petitioner has not made the

required substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, the Court hereby

DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 26, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

Case 1:05-cv-00745-AWI-LJO Document 10 Filed 08/30/05 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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 3

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00745-AWI-LJO Document 10 Filed 08/30/05 Page 3 of 3