Cheatom v. Noll

Filing 13

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILTIY. Signed by Judge JEFFREY S. WHITE on 12/21/11. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/21/2011)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

LOUIS CHEATOM,
Petitioner,

8
9
10
11

vs.
RANDY GROUNDS, Warden,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. C 10-0590 JSW (PR)
ORDER DENYING
CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY
(Docket No. 10)

12
13

Petitioner filed a pro se habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. It

14

was directed to a disciplinary proceeding in which, as a sanction for violating prison

15

rules, Petitioner lost 30 days of good time credits and some privileges. Respondent

16

moved to dismiss, arguing that the loss of good time could not affect Petitioner’s

17

sentence because he was serving a life term. Petitioner was unable to point to any way in

18

which the disciplinary sanction could affect the term of his imprisonment. The Court

19

granted the motion.

20

Petitioner filed a notice of appeal. The Ninth Circuit now has remanded the case

21

for the limited purpose of considering whether a certificate of appealability (COA)

22

should be granted.

23

A judge shall grant a certificate of appealability "only if the applicant has made a

24

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The

25

certificate must indicate which issues satisfy this standard. See id. § 2253(c)(3). “When

26

the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the

27

prisoner’s underlying constitutional claim, a COA should issue when the prisoner shows,

28

at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid

1

claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it

2

debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v.

3

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). For the reasons set out in the ruling on the

4

motion to dismiss, jurists of reason would not find the order granting Respondent’s

5

motion to dismiss debatable or wrong. Petitioner’s request for a certificate of

6

appealability (docket number 10) is DENIED.

7

As instructed in the order of remand, the clerk shall transmit the record and this

8

order to the Court of Appeals.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10
11
12

DATED: December 21, 2011
JEFFREY S. WHITE
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5
LOUIS CHEATOM,

Case Number: CV10-00590 JSW

6
Plaintiff,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

7
v.

8
C. NOLL et al,

9
Defendant.

10
11
12
13
14

/

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California.
That on December 21, 2011, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing
said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by
depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office
delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

15
16
17
18
19

Louis Cheatom H-17581
H-17581
CTFC ED-99L
P.O. Box 689
Soledad, CA 93960

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Dated: December 21, 2011
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk