Haywood v. San Diego, CA County Sheriff

Filing 10

ORDER denying Certificate of Appealability. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 8/8/2018. (USCA Case Number 18-56008. Order electronically transmitted to the US Court of Appeals. All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service.) (akr)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ERICA D. HAYWOOD,

Case No.: 18cv1252-CAB-WVG
Petitioner,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE
OF APPEALABILITY

SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF,

15

Respondent.

16
17

On June 14, 2018, this Court issued an order denying in forma pauperis application

18

as moot and dismissing case without prejudice. [Doc. No. 3.] On July 23, 2018,

19

Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal. [Doc. No. 4.] On August 8, 2018, the Ninth Circuit

20

Court of Appeals issued an order “remand[ing] the case to the district court for the

21

limited purpose of granting or denying a certificate of appealability at the court’s earliest

22

convenience.” [Doc. No. 4 at 1.]

23

A petitioner complaining of detention arising from state court proceedings must

24

obtain a certificate of appealability to file an appeal of the final order in a federal habeas

25

proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2007). The district court may issue a certificate

26

of appealability if the petitioner “has made a substantial showing of the denial of a

27

constitutional right.” Id. § 2253(c)(2). To make a “substantial showing,” the petitioner

28

must “demonstrat[e] that ‘reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of
1
18cv1252-CAB-WVG

1

the constitutional claims debatable[.]’ ” Beaty v. Stewart, 303 F.3d 975, 984 (9th

2

Cir.2002) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

3

Here, Petitioner has not made a “substantial showing” as to any of the claims

4

raised by his petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Three of the claims involve conditions of

5

confinement and are, therefore, not properly brought in a habeas action under 28 U.S.C.

6

§2254. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973). The only remaining claim involves

7

ongoing state criminal proceedings and is barred from consideration under Younger v.

8

Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). “Reasonable jurist” would not disagree with this conclusion.

9

Beaty, 303 F.3d at 984. Therefore, the certificate of appealability is DENIED.

10
11
12

The Clerk of the Court shall forward to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals the
record with this order denying the certificate of appealability.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated: August 8, 2018

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
18cv1252-CAB-WVG