Fordjour v. Ayers et al
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on July 10, 2009. (mmcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/10/2009)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CHARLES M. FORDJOUR, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) ROBERT L. AYERS, et al., ) ) Respondents. ) ______________________________ ) No. C 07-2111 MMC (PR) ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY (Docket No. 53)
On March 20, 2007, petitioner, a California prisoner then incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled habeas corpus action, alleging that the revocation of his parole, on February 21, 2007 in Contra Costa County, violated federal law. He sought release from custody. On June 1, 2009, the Court dismissed the petition as moot for the reason that petitioner, in January 2009, had obtained a "mandatory parole discharge" from the term of parole that underlies petitioner's claims in the instant action. Consequently, the Court concluded that the case-or-controversy requirement is no longer satisfied in the instant action, and the Court is without continuing jurisdiction over the petition. (Order, filed June 1, 2009, at 3:17-5:1.) Petitioner has now filed a notice of appeal, which the Court construes as including a request for a certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b). See United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997). Petitioner has not shown, however, "that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Accordingly, the request for a certificate of appealability is hereby DENIED. The Clerk shall forward this order, along with the case file, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, from which petitioner may also seek a certificate of appealability. See Asrar, 116 F.3d at 1270. This order terminates Docket No. 53. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: July 10, 2009 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?