Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00961/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00961-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles Lowell Kentz
Petitioner
Jeff Wrigley
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES LOWELL KENTZ, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

JEFF WRIGLEY, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-cv-00961-AWI-SMS-HC

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

(Document #26)

Petitioner is a state prisoner who filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. January 3, 2007, the court adopted the Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations and denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus. On January

29, 2007, Petitioner filed an application for a certificate of appealability.

 A 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, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). The controlling statute 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.

 (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

Case 1:06-cv-00961-AWI -SMS Document 27 Filed 02/07/07 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

 (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 the 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, 537 U.S. at 327; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

In the present case, the court finds that reasonable jurists would not disagree with

the court’s determination that Plaintiff’s claims are unexhausted. In addition, reasonable jurists

would not disagree that based on the contentions made in the petition, Petitioner was given all

due process protections at his disciplinary hearing. Accordingly, the court hereby ORDERS that

Plaintiff’s motion for a certificate of appealability is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 5, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00961-AWI -SMS Document 27 Filed 02/07/07 Page 2 of 2