N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
AB DULLAHI KHALIF NOOR ,

Pe t i tione r - Appe l la

nt,
v. M ELISSA ANDREW JESKI, Supe rinte nde nt,

R e sponde nt - Appe lle e . No. 23-1736 D.C . No. 2:22-c v-00270-JHC
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington John H. C hun, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a n d Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 11, 2024 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : W . FLETC HER

and SUNG, C irc uit Judge s, a nd R AKOFF, Distric t Judge
. ** Pe titione r-Appe lla

nt Abdulla

hi Kha lif Noor (“

Noor” ) a ppe a ls from

the distric t c o urt’ s de n ia l of his pe tition for a writ of ha

be a s c o rpus, whic h c h a l le nge d



# F IL ED OCT 3 2024 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble Je d S. R akoff, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the Southe rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa tion.his inde te rm inat e life se nte nc e in W a shington Sta te prison. Thedistric t

c ourt gran te d a c e rtific ate of a

ppe a la bility (“ C OA” ) for one c la im

— Noor’ s c onstitutiona

l
c ha lle nge to the C OA re quire m e nt itse lf. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. §§ 1291 a nd 2253, a

nd we re vie w the distric t

c o urt’ s de nia l of ha

be a s re lie f de novo, Av e na v . C

happe ll , 932 F.3d 1237, 1247 (9th C ir. 2019). Noor a rgue s tha t the C OA re quire m e n t viola te s the Due Proc e ss C la

u se and Equa l Prote c tion C la

u se of the Fifth Am e ndm e nt. The distric t c ourt “ d e c l ine [d] Pe titione r’ s re q

ue s t to strikedown thec e rtific ate of a ppe a la bility re quire m e nt.” Noor m ake s the sam e re que s t of this C ourt. W e a gre e with thedistric t c ourt a nd uphold theC OA re quire m e nt a s c onstitutiona l. Ac c ordingly , we a ffirm the distric t
c ourt’ s de nia l of ha

b e a s re lie f. C ongre ss c re at e d the c urre nt C OA re q uire m e nt, c odifie d unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 2253(c ), whe n it pa sse d the Antite rrorism and Effe c tive De at

h Pe na lty Ac t of 1996 (“ AEDPA” ). Pub. L. No. 104-132, § 102, 110 Sta t. 1214, 1217–18. The sta tute re q uire s ha be a s pe t itione rs to obta in judic ia l pre c l e aranc e be fore a ppe a ling the d e nia l of ha

be a s re lie f. 28 U.S.C . § 2253(c )(1). Ha be a s pe t itione rs m

u st m ake

“ a substa ntia l showing of the

de nia l of a

c onstitutiona

l right” to re c e i ve a C OA. Id. § 2253(c )(2). B y

c om p a rison, gove rnm e nt re s ponde n ts m ay a ppe a l without a C OA. Fe d. R . App. P. 22(b)(3).
2First, the C OA re quire m e nt doe s not viola te the Due Proc e ss C la

use be c a use it doe s not infringe

a funda m e nta l right. W

hile the re is a “ funda

m e nta l
c onstitutiona

l right of a c c e ss to thec ourts,” Le w is v . C ase y , 518 U.S. 343, 346 (1996) (quoting Bounds v
. Smith , 430 U.S. 817, 828 (1977)), this right is not
a bsolute
. Se e Boddie

v . C onne c tic ut , 401 U.S. 371, 382 (1971) (“ W e do not de c ide that a c c e ss for a ll individua

l s to thec ourts is a

right tha t is, in all c i rc um sta

nc e s, gua ran te e d by

the Due Proc e ss C la

use of the Fourte e nth Am e ndm e n t.” ). The C onstitution doe s not prote c t a right to a p pe a l in fe d e ra l ha

be a s c orpus proc e e dings. Abne

y v . Unite d State

s , 431 U.S. 651, 656 (1977). It is true tha t prisone rs ha

ve a c onstitutiona

l right to file

ha be a s pe titions. Ex

parte Hull , 312 U.S. 546, 549 (1941) (de c la ring inva lid a

re gula tion tha t re quire d sc re e ning of prisone rs’ ha

b e a s pe titions). B ut Noor ha s provide d no c a se la w e xte nding this right to h abe as appe als . Furthe r, the C OA re q u ire m e nt pre se rve s a

ppe a l in c e rta in
we ll-de fine d situa

tions a nd a voids “unre a sone d distinc tions” be t we e n ha be a s pe titione rs a

nd gove rnm e nt re sponde nts. Rinaldi v
. Ye age r , 384 U.S. 305, 310 (1966). Se c ond, the C OA re quire m e nt’ s dispa rate tre atm e nt of pe titione rs a nd gove rnm e nt re s ponde nts is c onstitutiona l. B e c a use ha be a s pe titione rs a

re not a suspe c t c l a s s, the C OA re quire m e nt m ust sim ply be “ rat iona lly

re late d to a
3le gitim ate gove rnm e nta l purpose .” Hode l v . Indiana , 452 U.S. 314, 331 (1981). The pre ve ntion of frivolous a p pe a ls is a le gitim ate gove rnm e nt inte re st, a nd the C OA re quire m e nt is ra

tiona lly re late d to this purpose
. It is re a sona ble for C ongre ss to a

ntic ipate that gove rnm e nt re sponde nts would file fe we r frivolous
a ppe a ls tha

n ha be a s pe titione rs. Se e J

ohnson v . Ranc ho Santiago C mty . C oll. Dist. , 623 F.3d 1011, 1031 (9th C ir. 2010) (“ [A] sta te a c tion ne e d not ac tually furthe r a le gitim ate inte re st; it is en ough tha t the gove rning body

‘ c ould hav erationally de c ide d that’ the a c tion would furthe r that inte re s t.” (quoting Minne s ota v . C lov e r Le af C re ame r y C o. , 449 U.S. 456, 466 (1981))). Noor c onte nds tha

t the C OA re quire m e nt fa i ls rationa l ba sis re vie w be c a use it is m otiva

te d by “ anim us” a ga inst ha

be a s pe titione rs. Noor points to the le gisla tive history

for a 1908 a c t tha

t c re ate d the pre c ursor to theC OA
re quire m e nt— a

c e rtific ate of proba

ble c a use . Ac t of M arc h 10, 1908, Pub. L. No. 60-46, 35 Sta

t. 40, c . 76. The le gisla

tive history

sugge sts tha

t the 1908 C o ngre ss
m ay have be e n m o tiva

te d by the purpose of pre ve n ting ly nc hing. C o m

m . on the Judic ia ry , R e stric tion of Right of Appe a l in Ha be a s C orpus Proc e e dings, H.R . R e p. No. 23, a t 2 (1st Se ss. 1908). Noor a rgue s tha t this purpose

pe rpe tuat e d ra c ist
m ythology tha t de la y s in c a se s tha

t re sulte d in “ ly

nc hing [we re ] due to frivolous
and tim e -c o nsum ing a

ppe a ls by guilty B la c k ra p i sts.” Whe the r or not this is true , 4Noor c onc e de s tha t the re is no le gisla

tive history

to sugge st tha

t this purpose
m otiva t e d C ongre ss whe n it pa sse d AEDPA 88 y e a rs late r. Furthe r, Noor ha s the burde n of re futing “ e ve ry

c o nc e iva b le ba sis” for the C OA re quire m e nt unde r rationa l ba sis re v i e w. FC C v . Be ac h C o mmc ’ns, Inc
. , 508 U.S. 307, 315 (1993) (quoting Le hnhause n v . Lak e Shore Auto Parts C

o. , 410 U.S. 356, 364 (1973)). Noor ha s not c arrie d this burden be c a use the C OA re q

uire m e nt is ra

tiona l ly re late d to the le g itim ate purpose of pre ve nting frivolous a ppe a ls. AFFIRM E D.

5