Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02943/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02943-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD JAMES WELK,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 12-CV-2943-IEG (WVG)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY 

[Doc. No. 16]

v.

MATTHEW CATE,

Respondent.

Presently before the Court is Petitioner Richard James Welk’s (“Petitioner”)

application for certificate of appealability. [Doc. No. 16.]

On December 10, 2012, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a

petition for writ of habeas corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

challenging his conviction for one count of first-degree murder. [Doc. No.1,

Petition.] Petitioner contends that habeas relief is proper based on one ground: he

argues that his due process rights were violated based on insufficient evidence to

support his conviction for violation of California Penal Code § 187(a). [Id. at 9-19.]

On May 3, 2013, Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo issued a Report and

Recommendation (“R & R”) recommending that the Petition be denied with

prejudice. [Doc. No. 11, R & R.] On July 22, 2013, Petitioner filed an Objection to

R & R (“Objection”). [Doc. No. 14, Objection.] On July 22, 2013, Petitioner filed a

notice of appeal to the 9th Circuit, which stated the following: “Pursuant to Rule

- 1 - 12cv2943

Case 3:12-cv-02943-LAB-WVG Document 19 Filed 08/16/13 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

4(a), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Petitioner RICHARD JAMES WELK

hereby appeals from the Judgement of the Court denying the Petition for writ of

habeas corpus and dismissing the action with prejudice. Petitioner files this notice

in anticipation of said judgement . . . .” [Doc. No. 15, Notice of Appeal (emphasis

added).] This Court has not yet ruled on the R & R. As Petitioner recognizes in his

Notice of Appeal, final judgment has not been entered in this case. 

On August 15, 2013, the Ninth Circuit sent a letter to Petitioner which states

that “[a] briefing schedule will not be set until the district court and, if necessary,

this court determine whether a certificate of appealability should issue.” [Doc. No.

18, Letter from 9th Circuit.] 

A petitioner complaining of detention arising from state court proceedings

must obtain a certificate of appealability to file an appeal of the “final order” in a

federal habeas proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2007). Final orders are

subject to review on appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(a); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (“The

courts of appeals . . . have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the

district courts of the United States . . . .”). “A decision is final within the meaning

of § 1291 if it (1) is a full adjudication of the issues, and (2) clearly evidences the

judge’s intention that it be the court’s final act in the matter.” Patel v. Del Taco,

Inc., 446 F.3d 996, 1000 (9th Cir. 2006).

There has been no final, appealable order resolving the present action. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE a certificate of

appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see also Macias v. Hartley, 2013 WL

2447870 (E.D. Cal. June 5, 2013); Terry v. Yates, 2006 WL 1170165 (E.D. Cal.

May 2, 2006).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 16, 2013 ______________________________

IRMA E. GONZALEZ

United States District Judge

- 2 - 12cv2943

Case 3:12-cv-02943-LAB-WVG Document 19 Filed 08/16/13 Page 2 of 2