Inostroz v. Eldridge
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:17-cv-05577
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Inostroz v. Eldridge, Judge Gilliam denied a certificate to appeal and permission to proceed without fees because petitioner had not shown the prior habeas ruling was reasonably debatable.
Miguel Cardona Inostroz's ability to appeal the denial of his federal custody challenge without a certificate of appealability and without paying filing fees; the clerk was directed to process the appeal.
What happened
In Inostroz v. Eldridge, Miguel Cardona Inostroz, a prisoner without a lawyer, asked for permission to appeal the earlier denial of his petition challenging his custody. The court had denied that petition and entered judgment for Laura Eldridge on January 21, 2020.
The court denied a certificate of appealability because Inostroz had not shown that a reasonable judge could find the denial of his petition debatable or wrong. Without that certificate, the court also denied his request to proceed with the appeal without paying filing fees.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ordered the clerk to process the appeal and send the order to the federal appeals court. The order terminated the pending requests.
The detailed version
- Inostroz v. Eldridge · No. 4:17-cv-05577
- Haywood Gilliam
- Apr. 29, 2020
Background
Miguel Cardona Inostroz, a prisoner representing himself, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his custody. On January 21, 2020, the court denied the petition, denied a certificate of appealability, and entered judgment in favor of Laura Eldridge.
The pending requests were Inostroz's renewed requests for a certificate of appealability and his request to proceed on appeal without paying filing fees.
Ruling
The court denied the certificate of appealability for the same reasons stated in its January 21, 2020 order denying the petition. A certificate of appealability is required for an appeal from the denial of a § 2254 petition. The court found that Inostroz had not made the required substantial showing that a reasonable judge could find the denial of his petition debatable or wrong.
Because the court denied a certificate of appealability, it also denied Inostroz's request to proceed without paying filing fees on appeal. The clerk was ordered to process the appeal and forward a copy of the order to the United States Court of Appeals. The order terminated Docket Nos. 18, 20, and 22.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.