Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06365/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06365-4/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

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARRELL VINCENT WHITE,

Petitioner,

v.

ROBERT AYERS, JR., warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 06-6365 SI (pr)

ORDER DENYING PAUPER

APPLICATION FOR APPEAL 

This action is now before the court for consideration of petitioner's motion to proceed

as a pauper on appeal. This action worked its way through the district court in less than eight

months from the filing of the petition through the entry of judgment. One of the reasons for

the case's quick resolution was petitioner's allegation that he was being detained beyond the

end of his prison sentence; he claimed that prison officials refused to correct his records to

reflect that his sentence had expired. An allegation that a bureaucratic blunder is causing a

person to be imprisoned beyond the end of his sentence is a serious one that causes great

concern to the court. However, once the court peeled back the many procedural overlays to

get to the heart of the matter, the court realized that the legal theory petitioner was advancing

was utterly meritless. When all was said and done, the case was simply a prisoner trying to

parlay a computer glitch into a shorter sentence that the state court had already determined he

was not entitled to. The court's analysis of the claim is explained at length in the Order Of

Dismissal, and the reader is directed specifically to the text at pages 7-8 of that order to see

why there is no merit to petitioner's claim. The court certifies that an appeal would be

frivolous and not taken in good faith. Petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on

Case 3:06-cv-06365-SI Document 27 Filed 07/25/07 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

27

28

2

appeal is therefore DENIED. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(2, 3). 

(Docket # 26.) This denial is without prejudice to petitioner filing a request in the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P.

24(a)(5).

Petitioner also filed a notice of appeal. The court does not construe the notice of

appeal to request a certificate of appealability because petitioner does not need a certificate

of appealability to challenge the execution of his sentence by prison officials. See generally

Rosas v. Nielsen, 428 F.3d 1229, 1231-32 (9th Cir. 2005).

The clerk shall forward the case file to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 25, 2007 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-06365-SI Document 27 Filed 07/25/07 Page 2 of 2