Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Gomez v. Sisto

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


April 24, 2009

FREDY L. GOMEZ, PETITIONER,
v.
D.K. SISTO, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

ORDER

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is petitioner's request for a certificate of appealability (Doc. 29).

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has timely filed a notice of interlocutory appeal of this court's dismissal of Grounds One, Four, and Five for failure to exhaust state remedies.*fn1 Before petitioner can appeal this decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A certificate of appealability may issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 "only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The court must either issue a certificate of appealability indicating which issues satisfy the required showing or must state the reasons why such a certificate should not issue. Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).

Where, as here, the petition was dismissed on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability "should issue if the prisoner can show: (1) 'that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling'; and (2) 'that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right.'" Morris v. Woodford, 229 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1604 (2000)). After careful review of the entire record herein, this court finds that petitioner has not satisfied the first requirement for issuance of a certificate of appealability in this case. Specifically, there is no showing that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether petitioner exhausted Grounds One, Four, and Five.

Moreover, the order petitioner challenges is not appealable because it is not final. The issuance of a certificate of appealability cannot vest the court of appeals with jurisdiction if jurisdiction is not proper in that court. Cf. Hayward v. Britt, 572 F.2d 1324, 1325 (9th Cir. 1978) (addressing issuance of a certificate of probable cause).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's request for a certificate of appealability (Doc. 29) is denied.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.