Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00099/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00099-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Darryl Adams
Respondent
Steven Lindsey Thomas
Petitioner

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 The Court notes for the record that on August 14, 2006, after judgment was entered in this case, Petitioner 1

filed untimely objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (Court Doc. 15.) 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN LINDSEY THOMAS,

Petitioner,

v.

DARRYL ADAMS, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 06-0099 OWW DLB HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S REQUEST

FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

[Docs. 16, 17]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On August 7, 2006, the undersigned dismissed Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas

corpus, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust the state court remedies. On September 5, 1

2006, and September 11, 2006, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal and requested that the Court

issue a Certificate of Appealability. (Court Docs. 16, 17.) 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

Case 1:06-cv-00099-OWW -DLB Document 18 Filed 09/25/06 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

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

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, 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. 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: September 22, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00099-OWW -DLB Document 18 Filed 09/25/06 Page 2 of 2