Cortijo v. Schultz
- Martinez-Olguin
- 4:25-cv-01071
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Cortijo v. Schultz, Judge Martinez-Olguin denied Cortijo’s motions for an appeal certificate and reconsideration of the case’s stay.
Deangelo A. Cortijo’s federal habeas case and appeal are affected. The court denied his requests for permission to appeal the stay order and to reconsider that order; Jason Schultz, Warden, opposed the certificate-of-appealability motion.
What happened
In Deangelo A. Cortijo v. Jason Schultz, Warden, Cortijo asked for a certificate of appealability and reconsideration of the court’s March 18, 2026 order staying his case. He had also filed an appeal challenging that stay order.
The court concluded that the stay order was not a final decision, so no certificate of appealability should issue. It also said the special rule that sometimes allows appeals of nonfinal orders did not apply because the stay could be reviewed after a final judgment. The court further found that Cortijo had not followed the local rule for seeking reconsideration and had not shown the required change in facts or law, or that the court had overlooked important matters.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin denied both motions and directed the clerk to send the order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The detailed version
- Cortijo v. Schultz · No. 4:25-cv-01071
- Martinez-Olguin
- Sept. 17, 2026
Background
Deangelo A. Cortijo filed motions for a certificate of appealability and for reconsideration of the court’s March 18, 2026 order staying his case. A certificate of appealability is a court authorization generally required to appeal a final order in a federal habeas case. Cortijo also filed a notice of appeal. The Ninth Circuit treated that appeal as challenging the March 18 stay order and sent the matter back to the district court so it could rule on the two motions.
The March 18 order had stayed the case under Duke v. Gastelo rather than dismissing it under the Younger abstention doctrine while related state-court proceedings under California’s Racial Justice Act remained pending. Cortijo acknowledged that he continued to litigate his racial-bias claim in state court.
Certificate of Appealability
The court agreed with the respondent that the March 18 stay order was not final. A final decision generally ends the district court’s involvement in a case. Because the court had stayed the case rather than issued a final judgment, it concluded that no certificate of appealability should issue.
The court also rejected application of the collateral-order doctrine, a narrow exception allowing immediate review of some nonfinal orders. The court explained that the stay order could be reviewed by the court of appeals after the district court issued a final judgment.
Reconsideration
The court denied reconsideration for two reasons. First, Civil Local Rule 7-9(a) requires a party to obtain permission before filing a reconsideration motion concerning an interlocutory order—an order entered before final judgment. Cortijo had not complied with that requirement.
Second, even treating his filing as a request for permission to seek reconsideration, the court found that Cortijo had not shown a material change in facts or law, or that the court had overlooked material facts or dispositive legal arguments previously presented. The court rejected Cortijo’s assertion that the March 18 order had failed to consider his opposition, explaining that the order had addressed his arguments. The court noted that the opposition had been submitted by the respondent because Cortijo had mailed it to the respondent rather than directly to the court.
Disposition
The court DENIED Cortijo’s motions for a certificate of appealability and for reconsideration of the March 18, 2026 order. The clerk was directed to send a copy of the order to the Ninth Circuit.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.