Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-05445/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-05445-4/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE POPE,

Petitioner,

v.

RANDOLPH CANDELARIA,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 99-5445 DLB HC

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S

REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

[Doc. 82]

On September 12, 2002, this Court issued an order denying the petition for writ of habeas

corpus. On October 3, 2002, this Court denied Petitioner’s request for a certificate of

appealability. (Court Doc. 35.) 

On December 22, 2003, the Ninth Circuit issued a memorandum, vacating the order

denying the petition and remanded the matter to this Court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on

the following questions:

1) Was there a pre-trial conference where it was proposed that this statement be made?

2) Who was present at this conference, and who proposed use of the offensive word?

3) Was Pope aware beforehand that the statement would be made?

4) Did Pope actually consent to the use of this specific word?

5) And if he did consent, was any such consent informed?

(Memorandum of the Ninth Circuit, issued December 22, 2003, Court Doc. 44.)

On February 19, 2004, the Court ordered an evidentiary hearing to address the questions. 

The evidentiary hearing was held on May 27, 2004. 

On January 12, 2005, the Court issued findings regarding the Ninth Circuit’s factual

Case 1:99-cv-05445-DLB Document 84 Filed 10/07/05 Page 1 of 3
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

inquiries and judgment was entered this same date.

On July 20, 2005, Petitioner filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule

60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Court Doc. 65.) Respondent filed an opposition

on August 2, 2005. (Court Doc. 70.). Petitioner filed a reply on August 12, 2005. (Court Doc.

73.) On August 19, 2005, the Court heard oral argument on Petitioner’s motion. On August 29,

2005, the Court denied Petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment. (Court Doc. 76.) 

On September 28, 2005, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal and, on September 29, 2005,

Petitioner filed a request for a certificate of appealability. (Court Docs. 79, 82.) 

DISCUSSION

The controlling statute in determining whether to issue a certificate of appealability is 28

U.S.C. § 2253, which provides as follows:

 (a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 before a 

district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the court

of appeals for the circuit in which the proceeding is held.

 (b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding to test the 

validity of a warrant to remove to another district or place for commitment or trial 

a person charged with a criminal offense against the United States, or to test the 

validity of such person’s detention pending removal proceedings.

 (c) (1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an 

appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from–

 (A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the 

detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State 

court; or

 (B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.

 (2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the 

applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

 (3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which 

specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).

In the instant case, the Court finds that Petitioner has made the required substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS 

///

///

///

Case 1:99-cv-05445-DLB Document 84 Filed 10/07/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Petitioner’s a certificate of appealability as to the following issue: Whether the time for filing an

appeal should be excused based on counsel’s error in failing to file a timely notice of appeal as to

the Court’s January 12, 2005. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 6, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:99-cv-05445-DLB Document 84 Filed 10/07/05 Page 3 of 3