Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01785/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01785-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Neil H. Adler
Respondent
Wilson Thomas
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

U N ITED STATES DISTRICT COU RT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILSON THOMAS,

Petitioner,

v.

NEIL H. ADLER,

Respondent.

 /

1:09-cv-01785-LJO-SMS (HC)

ORDER DENYING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY

[Doc. 8]

On December 2, 2009, the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2241 was dismissed and judgment was entered. (Court Docs. 6 and 7.) 

On December 9, 2009, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal. (Court Doc. 8.) Because the

instant petition was dismissed as a successive section 2255 petition disguised as a section 2241

petition, a Certificate of Appealability is required. Porter v. Adams, 244 F.3d 1006, 1007 (9th

Cir. 2001) (“[m]erely labeling a section 2255 motion as a section 2241 petition does not

overcome the bar against successive section 2255 motions” and “a petitioner attacking the

conviction and sentence may not seek habeas relief under section 2241 in this court without a

COA.”). 

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

1

Case 1:09-cv-01785-LJO -SMS Document 9 Filed 01/12/10 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

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).

This Court will issue a 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 failed to show an

entitlement to federal habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the Court hereby DECLINES to issue a

Certificate of Appealability. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 12, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:09-cv-01785-LJO -SMS Document 9 Filed 01/12/10 Page 2 of 2