Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00895/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00895-1/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

19cv895-CAB-RBB

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH GEORGE,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. SPEARMAN, Warden, et al.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 19cv895-CAB-RBB

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY [Doc. No. 10]

On May 10, 2019, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for 

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. [Doc. No. 1.] The Court dismissed 

the action without prejudice and with leave to amend because Petitioner had failed to 

either pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit adequate proof of his inability to pay the fee and 

because Petitioner had failed to state adequate grounds for relief in the Petition. (Doc. 

No. 2.] Petitioner was given until July 15, 2019 to pay the $5.00 filing fee or file a 

motion to proceed in forma pauperis and file a First Amended Petition that cured the 

pleading deficiencies outlined in the Court’s Order. Id. 

On May 21, 2019, Petitioner filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis which the 

Court granted on May 29, 2019. [Doc. Nos. 4-5.] Petitioner was reminded that he was 

still required to file a First Amended Petition by July 15, 2019 if he wished to proceed 

with his case. [Doc. No. 5.] 

Case 3:19-cv-00895-CAB-RBB Document 12 Filed 06/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

19cv895-CAB-RBB

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

On June 4, 2019, Petitioner filed a second motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 

[Doc. No. 7.] Because Petitioner had already been granted in forma pauperis status, 

the Court denied Petitioner’s second application to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. No. 

7] as moot. Petitioner was also reminded that he must file a First Amended Petition no 

later than July 15, 2019 if he wishes to proceed with this case. Id.

On June 11, 2019, Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal claiming that the District 

Court’s dismissal of the petitioner was an abuse of discretion. [Doc. No. 9.] Petitioner 

also filed a motion for a certificate of appealability. [Doc. No. 10.]

A petitioner complaining of detention arising from state court proceedings must 

obtain a certificate of appealability to file an appeal of the final order in a federal habeas 

proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2007). The district court may issue a certificate 

of appealability if the petitioner “has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” Id. § 2253(c)(2). To make a “substantial showing,” the petitioner 

must “demonstrat[e] that ‘reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of 

the constitutional claims debatable[.]’ ” Beaty v. Stewart, 303 F.3d 975, 984 (9th 

Cir.2002) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). Here, Petitioner’s 

notice of appeal and, hence, his motion for certificate of appealability are premature 

because there has been no final order from the District Court. Petitioner has been granted 

leave to amend his Petition and has until July 15, 2019 to do so. Moreover, Petitioner has 

not made a “substantial showing” that the District Court’s initial dismissal (with leave to 

amend) was incorrect, and thus the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 17, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-00895-CAB-RBB Document 12 Filed 06/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2