Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00008/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00008-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roxanne Ari
Petitioner
Mary Lattimore
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROXANNE ARI, )

)

Petitioner, )

v. )

)

MARY LATTIMORE, )

)

Respondent. )

)

____________________________________)

1:10-CV-0008 AWI GSA HC

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

(Docket #10)

Petitioner Roxanne Ari has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. On January 20, 20010 the Magistrate Judge dismissed the complaint with leave

to amend. When dismissing the petition, the Magistrate Judge found:

In sum, the instant petition fails to state a cognizable claim for relief. Most

of the petition challenges conditions of confinement and must be raised by way of

a civil rights complaint. Because it appears a tenable claim may be raised with

respect to some serious rules violations that could potentially extend the duration

of her confinement, Petitioner will be granted an opportunity to file an amended

petition. Petitioner is advised, however, that the petition must only raise

cognizable claims relating to the duration or legality of her confinement, not

conditions of confinement. Failure to raise cognizable federal claims will result in

dismissal of the action. If Petitioner seeks only to raise claims involving

conditions of confinement, she must do so by way of a separate civil rights

complaint.

Petitioner did not file an amended petition. Rather, Petitioner filed a motion for a

certificate of appealability. Petitioner contends the Magistrate Judge improperly dismissed his

action.

Case 1:10-cv-00008-AWI-GSA Document 11 Filed 02/09/10 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

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, 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).

Neither a certificate of appealability nor an appeal is available to Petitioner at this stage of the

proceedings because there was been no final order resolving this action, as required by 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253. This action is not over because Petitioner still has the chance to file an amended

petition that states grounds for relief. Thus, Petitioner’s motion must be denied because there is

no final order from which Petitioner can appeal. 

Accordingly, the court hereby ORDERS that Petitioner’s motion for a certificate of

appealability is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 9, 2010 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:10-cv-00008-AWI-GSA Document 11 Filed 02/09/10 Page 2 of 2