Anderson v. Mendoza et al

Filing 33

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 04/19/19 DENYING as MOOT the 30 Motion for Certificate of Appealability. (Benson, A.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ERIC ANDERSON,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:17-cv-1244 KJM DB P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

B. MENDOZA, et al.,
Defendants.

16
On February 12, 2019, this court adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and
17
recommendations and dismissed plaintiff’s § 1983 claims. ECF No. 26. Movant has filed a notice
18
of appeal, ECF No. 28 and a motion for a certificate of appealability, ECF No. 30.
19
Plaintiff does not need a certificate of appealability to appeal this case. The
20
certificate of appealability requirement only applies to claims for habeas corpus relief arising
21
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 or § 2255. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); see also Hulihan v. Reg’l Transp.
22
Comm’n of S. Nevada, No. 2:09-CV-01096-ECR, 2012 WL 3135681, at *1 (D. Nev. Aug. 1,
23
2012); Dalluge v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, No. C11–5037RBL, 2011 WL 1675407, at *1 (W.D.
24
Wash. May 4, 2011) (“As this case was brought pursuant to 42 U. S.C. § 1983, there is no
25
requirement for a certificate of appealability.”); Jenkins v. Caplan, No. C 02–5603 RMW (PR),
26
2010 WL 3057410, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2010) (“[A] Certificate of Appealability is
27
28
1

1

inapplicable to a § 1983 action.”). Plaintiff’s request for a certificate of appealability, ECF No.

2

30, is therefore DENIED as moot.

3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 19, 2019.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2