Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06530/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06530-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD MASTERMAN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

TOM RIDGE, et al., )

)

Defendant. )

____________________________________)

CV F 03-6530 AWI WMW HC

ORDER DENYING MOTION

(Document #17)

Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On September 15, 2005, the

court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations and dismissed this action. 

On September 16, 2004, the Clerk of the Court entered judgment. 

An administrative review of the docket in this action reveals that one motion has been

administratively termed as an outstanding motion. On November 8, 2004, Plaintiff filed a

request for a certificate of appealability. This motion has become moot because Plaintiff has

since appealed this action, and Petitioner’s appeal has been dismissed. However, Plaintiff’s

November 8, 2004 motion remains administratively termed as outstanding. To address this

administrative problem, the court will resolve the motion at this time. 

A 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, 335-36 (2003). Title 28 U.S.C. § 2253 lists those situations in which a

Case 1:03-cv-06530-AWI -WMW Document 25 Filed 09/12/05 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

court can grant a certificate of appealability. However despite Section 2253, a certificate of

appealability is not required to appeal an order denying a Section 2241 petition where: (1) the

detention complained of does not arise out of a process issued by a state court; or (2) it is not a

Section 2255 proceeding. Forde v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 114 F.3d 878, 879 (9th Cir.1997). 

Here, the petition was not a Section 2255 proceeding and did not concern a state court judgment. 

Thus, no certificate of appealability was required. 

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that Plaintiff’s November 8, 2005 motion for a

certificate of appealability is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 9, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06530-AWI -WMW Document 25 Filed 09/12/05 Page 2 of 2