Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06791/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06791-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jeffrey Anthony Franklin
Petitioner
Robert A. Horel
Respondent

Document Text:

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY ANTHONY FRANKLIN,

Petitioner,

v.

ROBERT A. HOREL, warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 06-6791 SI (pr)

ORDER 

Petitioner filed a notice of appeal and an application for a certificate of appealability. See

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). The application for a certificate of appealability is

DENIED because petitioner has not demonstrated that "jurists of reason would find it debatable

whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of

reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling."

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). (Docket # 7.) The clerk shall forward to the court

of appeals the case file with this order. See United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir.

1997). 

Petitioner also filed an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. To the extent

he is applying to proceed in forma pauperis in the district court, the application is denied as

untimely and because he has sufficient funds to pay the $5.00 filing fee. To the extent he is

applying to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, the application is DENIED because petitioner

did not comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(1) in that petitioner did not

satisfy the requirement that he attach an affidavit that "states the issues that the party intends to

Case 3:06-cv-06791-SI Document 9 Filed 03/12/07 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

present on appeal." (Docket # 8.) Petitioner may file a new application in the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5). Petitioner should not file anything

further in the district court in this action unless directed to do so by the Ninth Circuit.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 12, 2007 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-06791-SI Document 9 Filed 03/12/07 Page 2 of 2