Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01950/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01950-3/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HAROLD L. ARMSTRONG, SR.,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-1950 LKK DAD P

vs.

D.L. RUNNELS, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks to appeal this court’s

December 21, 2006 dismissal of his application for a writ of habeas corpus. Before petitioner

can appeal the decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed.

R. App. P. 22(b).

A certificate of appealability may issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the

applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2). This court must either issue a certificate of appealability indicating which issues

made the required showing or state the reasons why such a certificate should not issue. Fed. R.

App. P. 22(b).

In this case, petitioner filed a document that purported to be a petition for writ of

habeas corpus. The document was captioned for filing in a state court and challenged conditions

Case 2:06-cv-01950-LKK -DAD Document 13 Filed 02/05/07 Page 1 of 2
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

2

of confinement. A previously filed civil rights action challenging the conditions of petitioner’s

confinement was pending in this court. In addition, a previously filed habeas action challenging

petitioner’s 2005 conviction was also pending in this court. Petitioner’s defective application for

leave to proceed in forma pauperis was disregarded, and this action was summarily dismissed

without prejudice as duplicative of other actions pending in this court.

Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of any constitutional

right. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability should not issue in this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 5, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01950-LKK -DAD Document 13 Filed 02/05/07 Page 2 of 2