Cisneros v. Robertson
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:20-cv-07861
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Cisneros v. Allen, Judge Gilliam denied Miguel A. Cisneros’s request for permission to appeal after dismissing his habeas petition as procedurally defaulted.
Miguel A. Cisneros’s ability to seek appellate review of the dismissal of his habeas petition was affected; the request for a certificate of appealability was denied, although he may ask the Ninth Circuit directly for one.
What happened
In Cisneros v. Allen, Miguel A. Cisneros asked the court for a certificate of appealability, which is permission to appeal a habeas-corpus ruling.
The court had previously dismissed Cisneros’s petition as procedurally defaulted, denied a certificate of appealability, and entered judgment for the respondent. In this order, the court denied Cisneros’s renewed request for a certificate of appealability for the reasons given in its earlier order.
Judge Gilliam stated that Cisneros may ask the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit directly for a certificate of appealability. The order terminated the pending request.
The detailed version
- Cisneros v. Robertson · No. 4:20-cv-07861
- Haywood Gilliam
- June 14, 2022
Background
Miguel A. Cisneros filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On February 9, 2022, the court dismissed the petition as procedurally defaulted, denied a certificate of appealability, and entered judgment in favor of the respondent. A certificate of appealability is required to pursue an appeal from certain habeas rulings.
The docket also reflects that the court directed the clerk to substitute Warden Trent Allen for the previously named respondent because Allen was identified as Cisneros’s current custodian.
Ruling
Cisneros later filed a request for a certificate of appealability. The court denied that request for the reasons stated in its February 9, 2022 order. The court stated that Cisneros may submit a request directly to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b)(1). The order terminated the request identified as Docket No. 49.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.