Brown v. Schuyler
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:20-cv-03405
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Brown v. Eldridge, Judge Rogers denied a certificate of appealability and counsel, but granted permission to proceed without paying appeal fees.
Gregory L. Brown’s appeal of the dismissal of his second or successive custody petition; the court denied a certificate of appealability and appointed counsel, but allowed him to proceed on appeal without paying filing fees.
What happened
In Gregory L. Brown v. Laura Eldridge, the court considered Mr. Brown’s appeal-related requests after dismissing his petition challenging his custody. The earlier petition was dismissed because it was a second petition and he had not obtained permission from the appeals court to file it.
The court said an appeal of that procedural dismissal required a certificate of appealability. Because reasonable judges would not question the ruling that Mr. Brown needed advance permission before filing a second petition, the court denied that certificate.
Judge Yvonne Rogers also denied Mr. Brown’s request for appointed counsel without prejudice to renewing it in the appeals court. She granted his request to proceed with the appeal without paying filing fees and directed the clerk to process the appeal notice.
The detailed version
- Brown v. Schuyler · No. 4:20-cv-03405
- Yvonne Rogers
- Aug. 26, 2020
Background
Gregory L. Brown filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his custody. The court had dismissed that petition on June 3, 2020, because it was a second or successive petition and Mr. Brown had not obtained authorization from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to have the district court consider it.
Mr. Brown appealed and requested a certificate of appealability, appointment of counsel, and permission to proceed on appeal without paying filing fees. The Ninth Circuit sent the case back to the district court solely so it could grant or deny the certificate of appealability.
Court’s reasoning
A certificate of appealability is required before a person may appeal a final order in a federal custody case. When a case was dismissed for a procedural reason without deciding the underlying constitutional claim, the applicant must show both that reasonable judges could debate whether the petition stated a valid constitutional claim and that reasonable judges could debate the procedural ruling.
The court focused on the procedural issue. Section 2244(b)(3)(A) requires permission from the court of appeals before a person files a second or successive petition. The court found that Mr. Brown had not obtained that permission and did not dispute having a prior habeas case. It therefore concluded that reasonable judges would not find the district court’s procedural ruling debatable or wrong.
Rulings
Judge Yvonne Rogers denied Mr. Brown’s request for a certificate of appealability. The court also denied his motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice to renewing that request in the court of appeals. It granted his request to proceed without paying filing fees on appeal and directed the clerk to process the notice of appeal. The order terminated Docket No. 9.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.