Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02412/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02412-4/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

WILLIAM BUFORD,

Petitioner, No. 2:03-CV-02412 ALA HC 

vs.

MATTHEW C. KRAMER, ORDER

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner William Buford, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has timely filed a

notice of appeal of this Court’s June 11, 2008 order denying his application for a writ of

habeas corpus. He has also requested a Certificate of Appealability.

When an application for federal habeas corpus challenges “the Board of Prison

Terms' administrative decision to deny [a] request for parole,” but not “the State court

judgment or sentence derived therefrom,” the challenged decision relates to the execution

of a petitioner’s sentence. Rosas v. Nielsen, 428 F.3d 1229, 1231 (9th Cir. 2005). 

Consequently, a petitioner challenging a parole denial need not secure a certificate of

appealability to appeal a district court’s denial of his habeas petition because the

petitioner is not challenging a detention arising out of “process issued by a State court.” 

Case 2:03-cv-02412-GEB-EFB Document 25 Filed 07/11/08 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

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 

In Rosas, “[t]he target of the first ground [of the] petition [was] not the State court

judgment or sentence derived therefrom, but the Board of Prison Terms' administrative

decision to deny his request for parole.” 428 F.3d at 1232. Here, Petitioner targets the

California Board of Prison Terms’ administrative decision finding him unsuitable for

parole. As in Rosas, the challenged decision relates to the execution of Petitioner’s

sentence, and no certificate of appealability is required. 

The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to refer the appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

///

DATED: July 10, 2008

/s/ Arthur Alarcón 

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

Sitting by Designation

Case 2:03-cv-02412-GEB-EFB Document 25 Filed 07/11/08 Page 2 of 2