Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01244/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01244-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roderick K. Thompson
Petitioner
L. Watson
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

RODERICK K. THOMPSON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

L. WATSON, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:07-cv-1244 AWI JMD (HC)

ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Petitioner Roderick Thompson filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is a California inmate, and he challenged the administrative denial of a

parole date. On June 19, 2009, the Court adopted Findings and Recommendations and denied the

petition because “some evidence” supported the California Board of Parole Hearings’s denial of a

parole date. On July 1, 2009, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal. Petitioner did not request a

certificate of appealability because prior to April 22, 2010, no certificate was required. However, in

Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 554 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc), the Ninth Circuit reversed prior

precedent and held that a certificate of appealability will now be required for petitioners who

challenge the administrative decision to deny them parole. On July 29, 2010, the Ninth Circuit

remanded Petitioner’s case to this Court for the limited purpose of granting or denying a certificate

of appealability. 

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. 

U.S. District Court

E. D. California 1

Case 1:07-cv-01244-AWI-JMD Document 19 Filed 08/02/10 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

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

 (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 habeas petition, a certificate of appealability may only be issued “if jurists

of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of [the] 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; see Hayward, 603 F.3d at 553. There must be “something

more than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith” to justify the issuance of a

certificate of appealability. Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 328; see Hayward, 603 F.3d at 553. 

In this action, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not disagree with this Court’s

denial of the petition. Based on the evidence, reasonable jurists would not disagree that “some

evidence” of Petitioner’s current dangerousness supported the denial of a parole date. See Pearson v.

Muntz, 606 F.3d 606, 608 (9th Cir. 2010); Hayward, 603 F.3d at 562-63.

Accordingly, the Court hereby DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 2, 2010 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

U.S. District Court

E. D. California 2

Case 1:07-cv-01244-AWI-JMD Document 19 Filed 08/02/10 Page 2 of 2