Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00118/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00118-2/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

Pursuant to Porter v. Adams, 244 F.3d 1006 (9 Cir.2001), a certificate of appealability is required where a § 2241 1 th

petition attacks the conviction or sentence, even if not construed as a motion pursuant to § 2255. However, a certificate of

appealability is not required to appeal an order denying a § 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). Plaintiff claims a certificate of appeallability is not necessary in this action because he is

asking for judicial review of an administrative decision concerning the execution of his sentence. Because the Ninth Circuit

has ordered this court to grant or deny a certificate of appealability, the court will comply with the Ninth Circuit’s order.

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PERCY J. DILLON, III, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

D. SMITH, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

Appeal No. 07-15664

D. C. No. 1:07-CV-00118 AWI SMS HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S

APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

[Doc. #14]

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

On May 15, 2007, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the District Court for the limited

purpose of granting or denying a certificate of appealability. Petitioner followed with a motion for 1

certificate of appealability on May 24, 2007. 

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

Case 1:07-cv-00118-AWI -SMS Document 15 Filed 05/29/07 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

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).

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 repentance to proceed further.”

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the court’s

determination that Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or

deserving of encouragement to proceed further. Reasonable jurists would not find that 28 U.S.C. §

2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of Petitioner’s detention because it appears a

petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is still available to Petitioner. In addition, the court finds that

reasonable jurists would not disagree with this court’s finding that relief pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §

3582(c)(1)(A)(i) is not available in this court because a request to recall a mandate to re-sentence a

petitioner should be made to the sentencing court or the Ninth Circuit. 

//

Case 1:07-cv-00118-AWI -SMS Document 15 Filed 05/29/07 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 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. The

Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to serve a copy of this order on the Ninth Circuit.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 25, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00118-AWI -SMS Document 15 Filed 05/29/07 Page 3 of 3