Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00001/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00001-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roderick Washington
Petitioner
J. Woodford
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

RODERICK WASHINGTON, )

 )

)

Petitioner, )

v. )

)

J. WOODFORD, ) 

 )

)

Respondent. )

)

____________________________________)

1:06-cv-00001-OWW-TAG-HC

ORDER DENYING

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

 

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in an application for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302. 

On July 19, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendation to dismiss

the petition for failure to comply with the Court’s orders. (Doc. 6). The Findings and

Recommendation were served on all parties and contained notice that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendation were to be filed within thirty days. Petitioner filed no objections. 

On December 1, 2006, the Court entered an order adopting the Magistrate Judge's Findings and

Recommendation and dismissing Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus. (Doc. 7). 

Case 1:06-cv-00001-OWW -TAG Document 13 Filed 10/26/07 Page 1 of 3
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

Judgment was entered on December 1, 2006. (Doc. 8). 

Ten months later, on September 7, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion to reopen the case and

vacate the judgment. (Doc. 9). On October 4, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued an order

denying Petitioner’s motion. (Doc. 10). On October 15, 2007, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal

of the Court's order. (Doc. 11). In his notice of appeal, Petitioner requested issuance of a

certificate of appealability. 

The requirement that a petitioner seek a certificate of appealability is a gate-keeping

mechanism that protects the Court of Appeals from having to devote resources to frivolous

issues, while at the same time affording petitioners an opportunity to persuade the Court that,

through full briefing and argument, the potential merit of claims may appear. Lambright v.

Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022, 1025 (9th Cir. 2000). However, 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, 335-336 (2003). 

The controlling statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2253, 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).

Accordingly, final orders issued by a federal district court in habeas corpus proceedings

are reviewable by the circuit court of appeals, and, in order to have final orders reviewed, a

petitioner must obtain a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253. This Court will issue a

Case 1:06-cv-00001-OWW -TAG Document 13 Filed 10/26/07 Page 2 of 3
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 3

certificate of appealability when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner must

establish that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition

should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to

deserve encouragement to proceed further’.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)

(quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)).

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

showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of

appealability. Reasonable jurists would not find it debatable that Petitioner has not shown an

entitlement to federal habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that

Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 25, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00001-OWW -TAG Document 13 Filed 10/26/07 Page 3 of 3