Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_99-cv-20535/USCOURTS-cand-5_99-cv-20535-1/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

Order Denying Certificate of Appealability; Denying Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis on Appeal

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.99\Morris535dencoa 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHILLIP MORRIS, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

A.C. NEWLAND, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 99-20535 JF (PR)

ORDER DENYING

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY; DENYING

MOTION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS ON

APPEAL

(Docket Nos. 57, 59)

Petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court granted Respondent’s motion to

dismiss the petition as untimely and entered judgment on April 10, 2003. On June 5,

2003, the Court granted Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability on the

following issues: (1) whether AEDPA’s limitation period should be statutorily tolled; and

(2) whether AEDPA’s limitation period should be equitably tolled in the instant petition. 

On May 19, 2004, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this Court’s order

dismissing the petition as untimely. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a motion for relief from

judgment, a first amended motion to vacate judgment, and two letters requesting a status

**Original filed 2/14/07**

Case 5:99-cv-20535-JF Document 60 Filed 02/14/07 Page 1 of 4
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

Order Denying Certificate of Appealability; Denying Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis on Appeal

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.99\Morris535dencoa 2

of the instant case. The Court denied Petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment and

motion to vacate judgment. The Court concluded that Petitioner failed to establish any of

the grounds for relief pursuant to Rule 60(b). The Court noted that the Court of Appeals

affirmed this Court’s dismissal of the instant petition.

In September 2006, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal based on the Court’s order

denying Petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment and motion to vacate judgment. 

Petitioner also filed a request for a certificate of appealability and a motion to proceed in

forma pauperis on appeal. The Court will DENY the request for a certificate of

appealability (docket no. 57) and DENY Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis

on appeal (docket no. 59).

DISCUSSION

Petitioner filed a notice of appeal and a request for a certificate of appealability

based upon this Court’s denial of his motion for relief from judgment and motion to

vacate judgment. 

Upon the filing of a notice of appeal and a request for a certificate of appealability

(COA), the district court shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the standard

for issuing a certificate, or state its reasons why a certificate should not be granted. See

United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing 28 U.S.C.

§2253(c)(3)). 

The Court dismissed the instant petition as untimely pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2244(d)(1). The Court denied Petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment and motion to

vacate judgment because Petitioner failed to establish any grounds for relief pursuant to

Rule 60(b). The Court of Appeals affirmed this Court’s dismissal of the instant petition

and Petitioner’s case is closed. 

Petitioner has not shown “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, 120 S. Ct. 1595, 1604 (2000). 

Case 5:99-cv-20535-JF Document 60 Filed 02/14/07 Page 2 of 4
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 may then ask the Court of Appeals to issue the certificate, see Fed. R.

App. P. 22(b)(1), or if he does not, the notice of appeal will be construed as such a

request, see Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(2).

Order Denying Certificate of Appealability; Denying Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis on Appeal

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.99\Morris535dencoa 3

Accordingly, Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability (docket no. 57) is

DENIED. Based upon the Court’s denial of appealability, Petitioner’s motion to proceed

in forma pauperis on appeal (docket no. 59) is DENIED. The Clerk shall transmit the

file, including a copy of this order, to the Court of Appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).1

 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _______________ JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

2/14/07

Case 5:99-cv-20535-JF Document 60 Filed 02/14/07 Page 3 of 4
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

Order Denying Certificate of Appealability; Denying Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis on Appeal

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.99\Morris535dencoa 4

This is to certify that a copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

Phillip Morris, Jr.

H-59819

CA Mens Colony -East

P.O. Box 8101

San Luis Obispo, CA 93409

Peggy S. Ruffra

CA State Attorney General’s Office

455 Golden Gate Avenue

Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102-7004

Case 5:99-cv-20535-JF Document 60 Filed 02/14/07 Page 4 of 4