Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-01294/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-01294-5/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

1

 The court has calculated this date pursuant to the mailbox rule. See Houston v. Lack, 487

U.S. 266, 276 (1988); Fed. R. App. P. 4(c). Petitioner filed a proof of service in which he states that

he handed his documents to prison staff for mailing on November 28, 2005.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN MATTHEW RAY,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-01-1294 FCD JFM P

vs.

ROSEANNE CAMPBELL,

Warden, et al., 

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On September 28, 2005, judgment was entered in

this court denying the petition. On November 28, 2005, petitioner filed a notice of appeal, a

request for a certificate of appealability, a request for extension of time to file a notice of appeal,

and a request for the appointment of counsel on appeal.1 On January 17, 2006, petitioner filed a

letter which this court construes as a request for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. 

In his motion for extension of time, petitioner explains that he was unable to

access the law library because of “lockdowns and poor availability” and he was erroneously

Case 2:01-cv-01294-FCD-JFM Document 45 Filed 03/03/06 Page 1 of 4
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

2

 Except for the requirement that appealable issues be specifically identified, the standard

for issuance of a certificate of appealability is the same as the standard that applied to issuance of

a certificate of probable cause. Jennings, at 1010.

2

informed that his appeal should be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth

Circuit. On October 23, 2005, petitioner filed a notice of appeal and a request for extension of

time in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. As soon as petitioner was able to access the law

library, he realized his mistake and filed his notice of appeal in this court. 

The timely filing of a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement. Scott v.

Younger, 739 F.2d 1464, 1466 (9th Cir. 1984). Here, the time limit for filing a notice of appeal

following entry of judgment is thirty days. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). However, Rule 4(a)(5) of

the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that “[t]he district court may extend the time

to file a notice of appeal if: (i) a party so moves no later than thirty days after the time prescribed

by this Rule 4(a) expires; and (ii) regardless of whether its motion is filed before or during the

thirty days after the time prescribed by this Rule 4(a) expires, that party shows excusable neglect

or good cause.” Petitioner’s request for extension of time was filed in this court within sixty

days from the date of judgment and is therefore timely. Good cause appearing, the court will

grant petitioner’s request for an extension of time to filed a notice of appeal. 

Before petitioner can appeal this decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A certificate of appealability may issue under 28

U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The certificate of appealability must “indicate

which specific issue or issues satisfy” the requirement. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3).

A certificate of appealability should be granted for any issue that petitioner can

demonstrate is “‘debatable among jurists of reason,’” could be resolved differently by a different

court, or is “‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Jennings v. Woodford,

290 F.3d 1006, 1010 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)).2

Case 2:01-cv-01294-FCD-JFM Document 45 Filed 03/03/06 Page 2 of 4
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

3

Petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right in

the following issues presented in the instant petition: (1) whether his trial counsel rendered

ineffective assistance; and (2) whether his appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance.

Petitioner has also filed a letter in which he states that he wishes to proceed on

appeal in forma pauperis but has not yet obtained a copy of his trust account statement and an

application to proceed in forma pauperis signed by his counselor. Petitioner represents that he

“was in forma pauperis” when he filed his habeas petition in this court. However, the court file

reflects that petitioner paid the filing fee for this action. Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure provides, in part, that where a petitioner has not been granted leave to

proceed in forma pauperis in the district court action, a motion for leave to appeal in forma

pauperis must attach an affidavit that “shows in the detail prescribed by Form 4 of the Appendix

of Forms the party’s inability to pay or to give security for fees and costs.” Petitioner has not

filed the information required by Form 4 of the Appendix of Forms. Accordingly, petitioner’s

request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal will be denied without prejudice to its renewal

when petitioner has been able to obtain the appropriate documentation.

Petitioner has also filed a request for the appointment of counsel. This request

will be denied without prejudice to its renewal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Accordingly, good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s request for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal is granted

and petitioner’s appeal is deemed timely filed;

2. A certificate of appealability is issued in the present action; and

3. Petitioner’s request to proceed in appeal in forma pauperis is denied without

prejudice; and 

////

////

////

Case 2:01-cv-01294-FCD-JFM Document 45 Filed 03/03/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

4. Petitioner’s December 1, 2005, request for the appointment of counsel is

denied without prejudice to its renewal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

DATED:March 3, 2006

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:01-cv-01294-FCD-JFM Document 45 Filed 03/03/06 Page 4 of 4