Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01628/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01628-3/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARMON WARREN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

D. L. RUNNELS, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05-CV-01628 AWI SMS HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S

APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On July 6, 2006, Petitioner filed a motion for a certificate of appealability of the May 31,

2006, order dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. A state 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039 (2003). 

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.

Case 1:05-cv-01628-AWI -SMS Document 15 Filed 08/23/06 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

 (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).

If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may only issue a certificate of appealability

“if jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or

that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed

further.” Miller-El, 123 S.Ct. at 1034; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). While the

petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must demonstrate “something more than

the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on his . . . part.” Miller-El, 123 S.Ct. at

1040.

In the present case, Petitioner disagrees with the dismissal of his habeas petition because he

contends his petition challenges a disciplinary hearing in which he suffered a loss of time credits.

The Court agrees that such a challenge would be cognizable in a habeas action; however, the Court

has reviewed the petition, Petitioner’s untimely objections, and the application for certificate of

appealability and finds the instant petition does not challenge the disciplinary hearing. Rather, the

petition attacks the state court rejection of Petitioner’s request for an order directing the prison to

produce the investigative reports used in the rules violation hearing. Petitioner seeks injunctive relief

in the form of granting Petitioner’s request for the production of these reports. The petition does not

challenge the outcome of rules violation proceeding itself. A request to compel discovery is not a

proper subject for the writ of habeas corpus. 

The Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s determination that

Case 1:05-cv-01628-AWI -SMS Document 15 Filed 08/23/06 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 3

Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or deserving of

encouragement to proceed further. Petitioner has not made the required substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES Petitioner's motion for

certificate of appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 23, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01628-AWI -SMS Document 15 Filed 08/23/06 Page 3 of 3