Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00169/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00169-2/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVE WILHELM,

Petitioner,

v.

RAYTHEL FISHER, JR., Warden,

Respondent.

No. 1:16-cv-00169-SKO HC

ORDER DISMISSING 

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND 

MOTION TO PROCEED 

IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(Docs. 10 and 11)

On March 9, 2016, this Court dismissed the above-captioned petition for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for failure to state a cognizable claim. On March 16, 2016, 

Petitioner filed a motion for sanctions, the substance of which has no relationship to the petition 

that was dismissed in this closed case. The Court has no jurisdiction to address an unrelated 

motion for sanctions made in a closed case.

In addition, upon close examination, it appears that Petitioner seeks to characterize a claim

for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254 as a violation of federal law entitling Petitioner to 

sanctions. To the extent Petitioner seeks relief for alleged constitutional violations arising from 

the actions of the classification committee of the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), he must bring his claims either in a new petition for writ of habeas 

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 or in a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as appropriate. In light 

Case 1:16-cv-00169-SKO Document 12 Filed 03/22/16 Page 1 of 3
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

27

28

2

of the limited factual allegations set forth in the motion for sanctions, the Court offers no opinion 

as to which action is the appropriate means for Petitioner to pursue his claim.

Because the Court dismisses the sanctions motion, the motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis is moot.

Certificate of Appealability

A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a 

district court's denial of his petition, but may only appeal in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). The controlling statute in determining whether to issue a 

certificate of appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides:

(a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 

before a district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on 

appeal, by the court of appeals for the circuit in which the proceeding 

is held.

(b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding 

to test the validity of a warrant to remove to another district or place 

for commitment or trial a person charged with a criminal offense 

against the United States, or to test the validity of such person's 

detention pending removal proceedings.

(c) (1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals 

from—

(A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the 

detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State 

court; or

 (B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.

(2) A certificate of appealability may issue under 

paragraph (1) only if the applicant has made a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.

(3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) 

shall indicate which specific issues or issues satisfy the 

showing required by paragraph (2).

///

Case 1:16-cv-00169-SKO Document 12 Filed 03/22/16 Page 2 of 3
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

27

28

3

If a court denies a habeas petition, the court may only issue a certificate of appealability 

"if jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's resolution of his constitutional claims 

or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to 

proceed further." Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

Although the petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must demonstrate 

"something more than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on his . . . 

part." Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 338.

In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court's 

determination that Petitioner is not entitled to pursue a motion for sanctions in this closed case to 

be debatable or wrong, or deserving of encouragement to pursue an appeal. Accordingly, the 

Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

Conclusion and Order

It is hereby ORDERED:

1. The motion for sanctions is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. 

2. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DISMISSED as moot; and

3. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 21, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00169-SKO Document 12 Filed 03/22/16 Page 3 of 3