Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00361/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00361-3/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 - 07cv0361-LAB (WMc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC E. QUINTON,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 07cv0361-LAB (WMc)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

[Dkt. no. 60]

vs.

I. CLAY, Warden,

Respondent.

On March 17, 2008, the Court denied the Petition without prejudice. That order

permitted Petitioner to conduct additional discovery and, if he wished, to file a motion for

leave to seek reconsideration. On May 19, 2008, Petitioner’s motion for leave to seek

reconsideration was accepted for filing. Before the Court could rule on that motion, however,

he appealed. The Court denied his request for a certificate of appealability as to that appeal

on October 15, 2008. That appeal is still pending before the Ninth Circuit. Because it was

clear the appeal deprived this Court of jurisdiction to decide Petitioner’s motion for

reconsideration, the Court on March 5, 2009 denied the motion without prejudice (Docket

no. 58 (“March 5 Order”)).

Then on March 26, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal of the March 5 Order, followed

on March 27 by a motion for certificate of appealability. While the March 5 Order denied

Plaintiff’s request for leave to seek reconsideration, it did so without prejudice in view of the

Case 3:07-cv-00361-LAB-WMC Document 61 Filed 04/02/09 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 - 07cv0361-LAB (WMc)

Court’s lack of jurisdiction. Although the order explained the Court would be inclined to deny

him leave to seek reconsideration, it also held that the Court lacked jurisdiction to do so at

this time. The March 5 Order therefore does not operate as a final judgment.

It is unclear whether the Ninth Circuit will deny the appeal and petition outright or deny

the appeal and remand. If and when the Ninth Circuit remands, Petitioner can then attempt

to show why the Court can and should entertain a renewed motion for leave to file a motion

for reconsideration.

As the Court previously explained, because this Court has not yet issued a final

judgment, the Court of Appeals would lack jurisdiction in this matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Even if the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction over the non-final order issued March 5, 2009,

jurists of reason would not find the Court’s decision debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel,

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

The certificate of appealability is therefore DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 30, 2009

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00361-LAB-WMC Document 61 Filed 04/02/09 Page 2 of 2