Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06061/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06061-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Scot Eric Pinkerton
Petitioner
M. Yarborough
Defendant

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

 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the parties consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate 1

Judge. 

 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCOT ERIC PINKERTON,

Petitioner,

v.

M. YARBOROUGH, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 03-6061 DLB HC

ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

On June 13, 2005, Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254 was denied and judgment was entered in favor of Respondent that same day. On 1

August 18, 2005, Petitioner filed a request for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal.

(Court Doc. 27.) On August 23, 2005, the undersigned denied Petitioner’s request as untimely.

(Court Doc. 28.) On September 28, 2005, Petitioner filed a motion for relief from judgment. 

(Court Doc. 29.) On October 19, 2005, the undersigned denied Petitioner’s motion. (Court Doc.

30.) 

On January 30, 2006, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an order

indicating that Petitioner had filed a petition for writ of mandamus in that Court that manifested

an intent to appeal from the October 19, 2005, order in this case. (Court Doc. 31.) The Ninth

Circuit directed that the petition be construed as a notice of appeal and to be deemed filed as of

Case 1:03-cv-06061-DLB Document 34 Filed 03/02/06 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

November 18, 2005. (Id.)

Although no express request was made for a certificate of appealability, the notice of

appeal shall be deemed to constitute a request for a certificate. See Fed. R.App. P. 22(b); United

States v. Asrar, 108 F.3d 217, 218 (9th Cir. 1997).

 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

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).

In the present case, the Court finds that Petitioner has not made the required substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, Petitioner’s request for a certificate

of appealability is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 2, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06061-DLB Document 34 Filed 03/02/06 Page 2 of 2