Fradiue v. Pliler, et al

Filing 64

ORDER denying 62 Motion for Certificate of Appealability signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 3/31/11. (Kaminski, H)

(HC) Fradiue v. Pliler, et al

Doc. 64

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 Petitioner Michael Mickey Fradiue ("Petitioner") is a state prisoner who filed a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 1998 state court conviction for possession of heroin. This Court denied his habeas claims, and Petitioner ----oo0oo---v. CHERYL K. PLILER et al., Respondents. MICHAEL MICKEY FRADIUE, Petitioner, ORDER No. 2:00-cv-02209-MCE-KJN P UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

now requests a certificate of appealability for the denial of federal habeas relief. Petitioner claims that his rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments were violated by the unlawful admission at trial of incriminating statements he made without due warning, pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 1

Dockets.Justia.com

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

Petitioner made the statements during an interview regarding possession of heroin while housed in Administrative Segregation ("Ad Seg") in prison, which he was relocated to after discovery of the heroin. He argues the circumstances rendered this line of

questioning "custodial interrogation" for the purposes of Miranda. A certificate of appealability may issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). The certificate of appealability must "indicate which 28 U.S.C.

specific issue or issues satisfy" the requirement. § 2253(c)(3).

A certificate of appealability should be granted

for any issue that petitioner can demonstrate is "debatable among jurists of reason," could be resolved differently by a different court, or is "adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further." Jennings v. Woodford, 290 F.3d 1006, 1010 (9th Cir.

2002) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)).1 Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Miranda rights are required only for

individuals in custodial interrogation, and an interview in Ad Seg does not give rise to custodial interrogation. /// /// /// /// ///

Except for the requirement that appealable issues be specifically identified, the standard for issuance of a certificate of appealability is the same as the standard that applied to issuance of a certificate of probable cause. Jennings, 290 F.3d at 1010. 2

1

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

Unlike the classic form of custodial interrogation, such as police interrogation or non-incarcerated custody detention, individuals may be escorted to Ad Seg for a number of reasons having nothing to do with the commission of a crime.2 Though

conditions in Ad Seg can be more restrictive than general population, they are not restricted for the purpose of an interrogation regarding the commission of a crime. This Court recognizes that Miranda warnings are required for custodial interrogations of prisoners. 1, 4-5 (1968). Mathis v. U.S., 391 U.S.

The Ninth Circuit has, however, warned against

creating a "per se rule that any investigatory questioning inside a prison requires Miranda warnings" as such a rule could "totally disrupt prison administration." 424, 427 (9th Cir. 1978). Cervantes v. Walker, 589 F.2d

Aside from being interviewed by an

official about possession of heroin as he sat in his cell in Ad Seg, Petitioner has provided no additional facts that would establish a custodial interrogation. Thus, in order to find that

Petitioner's constitutional rights were violated, a court must in essence create a per se rule that any investigatory questioning in Ad Seg is custodial interrogation for the purposes of Miranda. /// ///

For example, a rumor of an impending matter that could threaten safety is sufficient justification to house individuals in Ad Seg while the matter is investigated. Inmates may be placed in Ad Seg where their presence in the general population would threaten the safety of another inmate or endanger institution security. Inmates who have received specific threats, or are generally at high risk for potential attack in the general population are frequently housed in Ad Seg for their own protection. 3

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

Such a holding is far too broad, and inappropriate under Cervantes. Therefore, Petitioner's Application for Certificate

of Appealability (ECF No. 62) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 31, 2011

_____________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4