Brewer v. Madden
- William Orrick
- 3:22-cv-02577
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Brewer v. Madden, Judge Orrick denied a certificate of appealability and permission to appeal without paying the appellate filing fee.
Kevin Dean Brewer, also identified as Michael Green, and his appeal; the order was also sent to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
What happened
In Brewer v. Madden, the court had dismissed Kevin Dean Brewer’s habeas case after he did not pay the $5 filing fee, even though the court said he had several hundred dollars in his account. Brewer then appealed and asked for permission to appeal and to proceed without paying the appellate filing fee.
The court denied Brewer’s motion for a certificate of appealability because he had not shown that reasonable judges could debate whether his petition stated a valid constitutional claim or whether the court’s procedural ruling was correct. The court also denied his request to proceed without paying the appellate fee, finding that the appeal was frivolous, that Brewer had funds to pay, and that the case sought an unauthorized second or later petition challenging the same state-court judgment.
Judge William Orrick ordered the clerk to terminate all pending motions and send the order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The opinion does not decide the underlying habeas claims.
The detailed version
- Brewer v. Madden · No. 3:22-cv-02577
- William Orrick
- Dec. 12, 2022
Background
The court had dismissed this habeas case after Kevin Dean Brewer, also identified in the caption as Michael Green, failed to pay the $5 filing fee. The court stated that Brewer had several hundred dollars in his account. Brewer appealed and filed two motions: one seeking a certificate of appealability, which is required for certain habeas appeals, and one seeking permission to proceed on appeal without paying the filing fee.
Rulings
The court denied the motion for a certificate of appealability. It applied the standard requiring Brewer to show that reasonable judges could debate both whether the petition stated a valid claim that his constitutional rights were denied and whether the district court correctly made its procedural ruling. The court found that Brewer had not made that showing.
The court also denied Brewer’s motion to proceed without paying the appellate filing fee. It found that the appeal was frivolous, that Brewer had funds to pay the fee, and that this habeas action attempted to present an unauthorized second or later petition concerning the same state-court judgment challenged in prior related proceedings. The opinion identifies those earlier proceedings by docket numbers including Nos. 12-cv-01689-WHO, 15-cv-02456-WHO, 19-cv-00176-WHO, 20-cv-03975-WHO, and 22-cv-01777-WHO.
Effect of the Order
The court denied both motions. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and send a copy of the order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The opinion does not address the merits of the underlying habeas claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.