Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_99-cv-00946/USCOURTS-caed-2_99-cv-00946-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENNIS SANDELL OTT,

Petitioner,

v.

ANTHONY NEWLAND, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

Civ. S–99-0946 DFL GGH P

O R D E R

Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus under

28 U.S.C. § 2254 was denied on February 4, 2004. The court

denied his request for a certificate of appealability on June 14,

2004. On July 22, 2004, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals also

denied his request for a certificate of appealability. 

Petitioner filed a motion for relief from judgment under

Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) on January 25, 2005, which the court denied on

March 22, 2005. Petitioner now brings a request for a

certificate of appealability to appeal the denial of his Rule

60(b) motion. 

Case 2:99-cv-00946-DFL-GGH Document 155 Filed 07/01/05 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, a certificate of appealability is

warranted only if the case presents a “substantial question,”

i.e., one that 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)). 

This case presents no such “substantial question” and the

April 19, 2005 motion for certificate of appealability is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 6/30/2005

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:99-cv-00946-DFL-GGH Document 155 Filed 07/01/05 Page 2 of 2