Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02920/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02920-1/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 - 09cv2920

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHAD THOMAS ELIE,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 09-CV-2920-H (PCL)

ORDER

(1) DENYING MOTION FOR

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY; &

(2) DENYING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS ON APPEAL

vs.

KELLY HARRINGTON, Warden, and

EDMUND BROWN, JR., Attorney

General of the State of California,

Respondents.

On June 9, 2011, the Court issued an order denying Petitioner Chad Thomas Elie’s

petition for writ of habeas corpus. (Doc. No. 28.) The Court also denied a certificate of

appealability. (Id.) On June 27, 2011, Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a motion for

extension of time to file a notice of appeal, request a certificate of appealability, and a motion

to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 30.) On June 30, 2011, the Court granted Petitioner’s

motion for extension to file notice of appeal and other related motions. (Doc. No. 31.) On

September 15, 2011, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal (Doc. No. 32) along with a motion to

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (Doc. No. 33) and a motion for certificate of appealability

from district court. (Doc. No. 35.) 

According to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, a petitioner may not seek an

Case 3:09-cv-02920-H-PCL Document 37 Filed 09/20/11 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 - 09cv2920

appeal of a claim arising out of state court detention unless the petitioner obtains a certificate

of appealability from either the district judge or a circuit judge under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. See

Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Section 2253 states that a certificate of appealability may only issue if

the petitioner makes a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1). Where, as here, the district court has rejected the petitioner’s constitutional

claims on the merits, “[t]he petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000).

The Court previously denied a certificate of appealability. (See Doc. No. 28.) The

Court will alternatively consider Petitioner’s current motion as a motion for reconsideration

of that denial. The Court has carefully reviewed Petitioner’s original petition, this motion, and

other related papers. From that careful review, the Court sees no good grounds for issuing a

certificate of appealability in light of the controlling legal standards. Because Petitioner has

not made a “substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right,” Slack, 529 U.S. at 483-

84, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Because the Court denies

Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability, the Court denies as moot Peitioner’s

motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 20, 2011

______________________________

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

Case 3:09-cv-02920-H-PCL Document 37 Filed 09/20/11 Page 2 of 2