Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06409/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06409-12/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

MONROE WALTER BURNS,

Petitioner,

v.

A.P. KANE, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

1:04-cv-6409 LJO DLB HC

ORDER DISREGARDING PETITIONER’S

REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO

FILE APPEAL AND MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, AND

DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

[Docs. 51, 52, 54]

On November 28, 2007, the Court denied the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus

filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and judgment was entered in favor of Respondent. (Court

Docs. 49, 50.) On January 31, 2008, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal, motion for leave to file

late notice of appeal, motion for appointment of counsel, and request for certificate of

appealability. (Court Docs. 51, 52, 53, 54.) 

1. Motion for Extension of Time to File Appeal

Petitioner requests a thirty day extension of time, until February 28, 2008, to file his

notice of appeal. Inasmuch as Petitioner filed his notice of appeal on this same date, January 31,

2008, his request for an extension of time to file such shall be DISREGARDED as unnecessary.

2. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

With regard to Petitioner’s motion for the appointment of counsel, as the case in this

Court is closed and is on appeal, Petitioner’s request should be directed to the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals.

Case 1:04-cv-06409-LJO -DLB Document 55 Filed 02/08/08 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

3. Request for Certificate of Appealability

Petitioner also seeks to appeal this action, and requests a certificate of appealability. 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, 335-336 (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).

When the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds, as the court did in

this action, a certificate of appealability should issue, and an appeal of the district court’s order

may be taken, if the petitioner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable

whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right, and that jurists of

reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000).

In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find it debatable that

the state courts’ decision denying Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus were not

“objectively unreasonable” and the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s motion for an extension of time to file his notice of appeal is

Case 1:04-cv-06409-LJO -DLB Document 55 Filed 02/08/08 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

DISREGARDED as unnecessary; 

2. Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel is DISREGARDED; and,

3. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 7, 2008 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06409-LJO -DLB Document 55 Filed 02/08/08 Page 3 of 3