From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tomlinson v. Caraway

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 16, 2014
Case No. LA CV 14-02094-VBF (KK) (C.D. Cal. Sep. 16, 2014)

Summary

adopting report and recommendation and noting that petitioner in federal custody was not required to obtain a certificate of appealability to appeal the denial of his section 2241 petition

Summary of this case from Blake v. Martinez

Opinion

Case No. LA CV 14-02094-VBF (KK)

09-16-2014

RANDALL D. TOMLINSON, Petitioner, v. JOHN F. CARAWAY, Warden, Respondent.


ORDER Overruling Petitioner's Objections, Accepting the Findings and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, Denying Federal Prisoner's Section 2241 Habeas Corpus Petition, and Dismissing this Action

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Document ("Doc" 1), the respondent's Return (Doc 9) and the accompanying declaration and exhibits (Doc 9-1), petitioner's reply (Doc 17), the well-reasoned Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of the Honorable Kenly Kiya Kato, United States Magistrate Judge (Doc 14), petitioner's objections (Doc 16), the records on file, and the applicable law. After engaging in a de novo review of those portions of the R&R to which petitioner lodged specific objection, the Court accepts the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED as follows:

Petitioner's objections are OVERRULED.
The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED.
This action is DISMISSED with prejudice.

As required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a), final judgment will be entered by separate document.

As a federal prisoner, petitioner is not required to obtain a certificate of appealability in order to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals in this case. See Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 958 (9th Cir.2008) ("The plain language of § 2253(c)(1) does not require a petitioner to obtain a COA in order to appeal the denial of a § 2241 petition.") (citing Ford v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 114 F.3d 878, 879 (9th Cir. 1997)); Muth v. Fondren, 676 F.3d 815, 818 (9th Cir.) (citations omitted), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 133 S. Ct. 292 (2012). Dated: September 16, 2014

The relevant provision states as follows:

Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from -



(A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court [such as a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254]; or



(B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.

/s/_________

VALERIE BAKER FAIRBANK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28 U.S.C. section 2253(c)(1). Our Circuit interprets section 2253 to require only habeas petitioners in custody pursuant to a state-court judgment to obtain a COA before appealing from a final order denying a § 2241 claim. See Harrison, 519 F.3d at 958 ("Although state prisoners proceeding under § 2241 must obtain a COA, see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A), there is no parallel requirement for federal prisoners.").


Summaries of

Tomlinson v. Caraway

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 16, 2014
Case No. LA CV 14-02094-VBF (KK) (C.D. Cal. Sep. 16, 2014)

adopting report and recommendation and noting that petitioner in federal custody was not required to obtain a certificate of appealability to appeal the denial of his section 2241 petition

Summary of this case from Blake v. Martinez
Case details for

Tomlinson v. Caraway

Case Details

Full title:RANDALL D. TOMLINSON, Petitioner, v. JOHN F. CARAWAY, Warden, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Sep 16, 2014

Citations

Case No. LA CV 14-02094-VBF (KK) (C.D. Cal. Sep. 16, 2014)

Citing Cases

Khan v. Langford

"Our circuit interprets section 2253 to require only habeas petitioners in custody pursuant to a state-court…

Davalos v. Marques

In addition, Petitioner's assertion that he did not know what was in the package is of no avail. Petitioner…