Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02964/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02964-3/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

FORREST RICHARDSON,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-08-2964 FCD EFB P

vs.

JAMES YATES,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner has timely filed a notice of appeal of this court’s January 21, 2010 denial of his

application for a writ of habeas corpus. On April 28, 2010, this Court directed the processing of

petitioner’s appeal without issuance of a certificate of appealability in reliance on White v.

Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2004) and Rosas v. Nielsen, 428 F.3d 1229, 1231-32 (9th

Cir. 2005), which held that no certificate of appealability was required in cases challenging an

administrative, rather than judicial, decision. Days before the issuance of this order, the Ninth

Circuit reversed the portions of White and Rosas relied on by the Court and held that a certificate

of appealability is required regardless of whether the challenged action was taken by an

administrative body or a court. Hayward v. Marshall, No. 06-55392, 2010 WL 1664977, *5 (9th

Cir. Apr. 22, 2010) (en banc). Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit remanded petitioner’s case to this

Court for the limited purpose of granting or denying a certificate of appealability.

Case 2:08-cv-02964-FCD-EFB Document 29 Filed 06/04/10 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

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), a certificate of appealability may issue “only if the

applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” See also Fed.

R. App. P. 22(b). A certificate of appealability should be granted for any issue that petitioner

can demonstrate is “‘debatable among jurists of reason,’” could be resolved differently by a

different

court, or is “‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Jennings v. Woodford,

290 F.3d 1006, 1010 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)). 

In this case, petitioner challenges a prison disciplinary action taken against him. This

Court concluded that petitioner had not stated a claim cognizable on federal habeas corpus

review, because the disciplinary action did not result in a forfeiture of good-time credits and thus

only potentially impacted the duration of petitioner’s sentence (by potentially impacting his

parole eligibility). See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (1998). As petitioner notes, there is

currently some disagreement in the district courts regarding whether disciplinary actions that

could impact parole eligibility are challengeable via federal habeas corpus petitions. See Drake

v. Felker, No. 2:07-cv-0057, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91585, *2-7 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2007). 

Accordingly, the Court concludes that petitioner has made the requisite showing for issuance of

a certificate of appealability on the issue of whether the petition, which challenges the imposition

of discipline against petitioner by prison authorities, presents a claim cognizable on federal

habeas corpus review.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is issued in

the present action.

DATED: June 4, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-02964-FCD-EFB Document 29 Filed 06/04/10 Page 2 of 2