Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00300/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00300-6/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VAATAUSILI MARK ALAIMALO, )

)

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

)

PAUL SCHWARTZ, Warden, )

)

)

Respondent. )

)

)

No. CV-F-05-300 REC/SMS HC

ORDER GRANTING CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY 

On March 22, 2006, petitioner, a federal prisoner, filed a

Notice of Appeal, purporting to appeal from the denial of

petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and from the denial of

his petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2241. 

The court expresses no opinion concerning the timeliness of

the Notice of Appeal. 

However, the court does conclude that petitioner is entitled

to a certificate of appealability with regard to the denial of

the petition for writ of habeas corpus. The petition claimed

Case 1:05-cv-00300-REC -SMS Document 36 Filed 03/27/06 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

that petitioner is entitled to proceed pursuant to Section 2241

because Section 2255 provided an inadequate and ineffective

remedy. Petitioner contends that he is actually innocent of the

crime of which he is convicted because of the Ninth Circuit’s

decision in United States v. Cabbacang, 332 F.3d 622 (9 Cir. th

2003) and because he did not have an unobstructed procedural shot

to raise this claim pursuant to Section 2255. The court

concludes that petitioner has shown that jurists of reason would

find it debatable whether this court was correct in its

procedural ruling and that jurists of reason would find it

debatable that the petition states a valid claim of the denial of

a constitutional right.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 24, 2006 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00300-REC -SMS Document 36 Filed 03/27/06 Page 2 of 2