Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06349/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06349-2/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

)

GUILLERMO VERA, )

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

STUART J. RYAN, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

 )

1:04-cv-06349-OWW-TAG HC 

ORDER DENYING ISSUANCE OF

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY (Doc. 14)

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On October 1, 2004, Petitioner filed the instant Petition. (Doc. 1). On May 2, 2005, the

United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation that the Petition be

dismissed with prejudice as untimely and in violation of the one-year statute of limitations in 28

U.S.C. § 2244(d). (Doc. 13). The Report and Recommendation afforded all parties a thirty-day

period within which to file objections. (Id.). On May 11, 2005, only nine days after the Court

issued its Report and Recommendation, Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal in the United States

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. (Doc. 14). 

LEGAL STANDARD FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 

“If no express request for a certificate is filed, the notice of appeal constitutes a request

Case 1:04-cv-06349-OWW -TAG Document 17 Filed 05/20/05 Page 1 of 4
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

addressed to the judges of the court of appeals.” FED. R. APP. P. 22(b)(3). A state prisoner

seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of

his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537

U.S. 322, 336 (2003). The controlling statute in determining whether to issue a certificate of

appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides as follows:

(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 issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).

Therefore, final orders issued by a federal district court in habeas corpus proceedings are

reviewable by the circuit court of appeals. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(a). In order to have final orders

reviewed, Petitioner must obtain a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). This Court

will issue a certificate of appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the

Petitioner must establish that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree

that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented

were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 483 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)). 

The filing of a notice of appeal generally divests the district court of jurisdiction to

determine the "substantial rights" at issue in an action during the pendency of the appeal. Griggs

Case 1:04-cv-06349-OWW -TAG Document 17 Filed 05/20/05 Page 2 of 4
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

v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (per curiam); Bermudez v. Duenas,

936 F.2d 1064, 1068 (9th Cir. 1991); Pyrodyne Corp. v. Pyrotronics Corp., 847 F.2d 1398, 1403

(9th Cir. 1988); Gould v. Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, 790 F.2d 769, 772 (9th

Cir. 1986); Scott v. Younger, 739 F.2d 1464, 1466 (9th Cir. 1984); Davis v. United States, 667

F.2d 822, 824 (9th Cir. 1982). An exception to this rule exists where a deficiency in the notice of

appeal "is clear to the district court." Ruby v. Secretary of the United States Navy, 365 F.2d 385,

389 (9th Cir. 1966). Only in such a case can the district court proceed with the case "knowing

that it has not been deprived of jurisdiction." Id. 

DISCUSSION

In this case, an obvious deficiency exists in the notice of appeal and Petitioner’s request

for a certificate of appealability must be denied because the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge, issued on May 2, 2005, is not a final order from which an appeal may be taken. 

The thirty-day period within which the parties may object to the Report and Recommendation

has not elapsed, nor has the District Court adopted the Report and Recommendation as its own.

Indeed, Petitioner has requested, and the United States Magistrate Judge has granted, an

extension of time of thirty days, until July 6, 2005, within which Petitioner may file objections to

the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. Unless and until the District Court adopts

the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, there is no final order from which

Petitioner can appeal, and hence there is no basis for issuance of a certificate of appealability. 28

U.S.C. § 2253.

ORDER

In the present case, the Court finds that Petitioner has not made the required substantial

showing that he has satisfied the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2253, because the order from

which he is attempting to appeal is not final. Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES Petitioner’s

request for issuance of a certificate of appealability. (Doc. 14).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 19, 2005 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

Case 1:04-cv-06349-OWW -TAG Document 17 Filed 05/20/05 Page 3 of 4
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

4

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06349-OWW -TAG Document 17 Filed 05/20/05 Page 4 of 4