Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00352/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00352-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Philip Earl Carter
Petitioner
Stu Sherman
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHILIP EARL CARTER,

Petitioner,

v.

STU SHERMAN,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00352-AWI-SAB-HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY (ECF No. 18)

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On December 8, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation that 

recommended that the petition be denied. (ECF No. 12). On March 20, 2015, the Court adopted 

the Findings and Recommendation and denied Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. 

(ECF No. 16). On that same date, judgment was entered in accordance with the order denying 

the petition. (ECF No. 17). In the order denying the petition, the Court also declined to issue a 

certificate of appealability. (ECF No. 16). 

On April 22, 2015, Petitioner filed a motion for certificate of appealability and a notice of 

appeal. (ECF No. 18). Upon a review of the instant motion, is unclear whether Petitioner is 

seeking a certificate of appealability from the district court or from the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals, so the Court will address Petitioner’s motion as if he is seeking it from the district 

Case 1:14-cv-00352-AWI-SAB Document 21 Filed 06/01/15 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

court. 

In the order denying the petition and declining to issue a certificate of appealability, the 

Court found 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” and that Petitioner had “not made the required substantial showing of the denial 

of a constitutional right” to justify the issuance of a certificate of appealability. (ECF No. 16 at 

3). Upon review of Petitioner’s motion for a certificate of appealability, the Court again 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. 

Therefore, Petitioner’s motion for a certificate of appealability must be denied. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion for 

a certificate of appealability. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 1, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00352-AWI-SAB Document 21 Filed 06/01/15 Page 2 of 2