Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00983/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00983-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Derrel G. Adams
Respondent
Andrew R. Lopez
Petitioner

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

ANDREW R. LOPEZ, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

)

v. )

)

)

)

DERREL G. ADAMS, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:08-CV-983 AWI YNP (DLB) (HC)

ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and

complained about a discipline violation that he received in prison. Petitioner sought restoration of

good time credits and expungement of the punishment from his record. On September 30, 2009, the

Court declined to adopt a Findings and Recommendation. Instead, the Court granted respondent’s

motion to dismiss and dismissed the matter as moot because Petitioner’s good time credits had been

restored. The Court found that the possible use of the rules violation by a future Board of Parole

Hearings panel was too speculative an injury, see Carranza v. Gomez, 221 Fed. Appx. 582, 583 (9th

Cir. 2007); Wilson v. Terhune, 319 F.3d 477, 481 (9th Cir. 2003), and that the case was thus moot. 

On October 13, 2009, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal.

On July 14, 2010, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case to this Court for the limited purpose of

determining whether a certificate of appealability should be issued. The remand was in light of a

change regarding certificates of appealability in Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 554 (9th Cir.

2010) (en banc).

A state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a

U.S. District Court

E. D. California 1

Case 1:08-cv-00983-AWI-WMW Document 33 Filed 07/15/10 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

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).

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 Petitioner’s

petition is moot because Petitioner’s injury is too speculative. See Carranza v. Gomez, 221 Fed.

Appx. 582, 583 (9th Cir. 2007); Wilson v. Terhune, 319 F.3d 477, 481 (9th Cir. 2003).

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

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 15, 2010 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

U.S. District Court

E. D. California 2

Case 1:08-cv-00983-AWI-WMW Document 33 Filed 07/15/10 Page 2 of 2