Ramirez v. Warden

Filing 165

ORDER by Judge Ronald M Whyte denying 162 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; denying 163 Motion for Certificate of Appealability; denying 160 Objections to Judgment (rmwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12
13

Case No. C-03-1817 RMW

ANTHONY M. RAMIREZ,
Petitioner,

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY; DENYING IN
FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS;
DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

v.

14
15
16

JAMES A. YATES, Warden,
Respondent.

[Re Docket Nos. 160, 162, and 163]
17
18
19
20
21

Anthony M. Ramirez (“Ramirez”) filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2254. The court denied the petition, declined to issue a certification of appealability, and
entered judgment in favor of Respondent. See Dkt. No. 158 (Order) and Dkt. No. 159 (Judgment).

22
Ramirez then filed “Objections to Judgment and Order Dismissing Habeas Petition with Prejudice,”
23
24
25

Dkt. No. 160 (“Objections”), a Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. No. 162, and a
Motion for Certificate of Appealability, Dkt. No. 163.

26

Despite Ramirez’s statement in his “Objections”, the court did not invite the filing of any

27

“objections” to the judgment. Dkt. No. 160 at 1. The court treats this filing as a motion for relief

28
ORDER
Case No. C-03-1817-RMW

-1-

1
2

from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. The motion is DENIED as it presents no
grounds for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b).

3

The motion for a certificate of appealability, Dkt. No. 163, is denied, as the court explained

4

in the Order Denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Denying Certificate of Appealability,

5

Dkt. No. 158, petitioner has not shown “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the

6

petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right [or] that jurists of reason would

7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Accordingly, a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
Because the appeal is not taken in good faith, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the motion to

11

proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. Petitioner may renew the motion in the Court of Appeal.

12

See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a).

13

SO ORDERED.

14
15
16

DATED: November19, 2014
_______________________
RONALD M. WHYTE
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER
Case No. C-03-1817-RMW

-2-